# Official Journal C 371/3 No

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 371 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 633 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 371

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 633 November 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 371/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 371/02 | Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2020/C 371/01

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

General Court

2020/C 371/02

Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 371/03 | Case C-272/20 P: Appeal brought on 19 June 2020 by Sebastian Veit against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18, Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank | 6 |
| 2020/C 371/04 | Case C-430/20 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2020 by Christoph Klein against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 2 July 2020 in Case T-562/19, Christoph Klein v European Commission | 7 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 371/05 | Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Ireland and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid implemented by Ireland — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid — Advance tax decisions (tax rulings) — Selective tax advantages — Arm’s length principle) | 8 |
| 2020/C 371/06 | Case T-659/18: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — ZS v EIB (Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Health status — Partial disability — Time management — Unjustified absences — Reduced compensation — Liability) | 9 |
| 2020/C 371/07 | Case T-371/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (FAKE DUCK) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Earlier EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 9 |
| 2020/C 371/08 | Case T-376/17: Order of the General Court of 17 August 2020 — Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Suspension of financial aid — Preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 10 |
| 2020/C 371/09 | Case T-755/18: Order of the General Court of 20 August 2020 — FL Brüterei M-V and Others v Commission (Action for annulment and for damages — Organic farming — Livestock production — Exceptional production rules applicable in case of non-availability of organic farm inputs — Use of non-organic animals — Extension of the period of application of the exceptional production rules — Lack of direct concern — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 10 |
| 2020/C 371/10 | Case T-22/19: Order of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission (Action for damages — Monetary agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra — Alleged negligence on the part of the Commission regarding the content of the agreement — Alleged negligence on the part of the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the agreement — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 11 |
| 2020/C 371/11 | Case T-190/19: Order of the General Court of 17 August 2020 — BF v Commission (Action for failure to act — State aid — Operation of water supply and sanitation facilities — Preliminary examination of alleged State aid granted by the German authorities — Second invitation to act — Commission’s position — Second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 — Time limit for bringing an action — Manifest inadmissibility) | 12 |
| 2020/C 371/12 | Case T-272/19: Order of the General Court of 31 July 2020 –TO v EEAS (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Refusal to employ on the ground that the candidate is unfit to perform duties — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Public policy — Delay — Calculation of the time limit — Determination of the date from which the person concerned could have become aware of the content of the decision — Manifest inadmissibility) | 12 |
| 2020/C 371/13 | Case T-354/19: Order of the General Court of 23 July 2020 — Palacio Domecq v EUIPO — Domecq Bodega Las Copas (PALACIO DOMECQ 1778) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 13 |
| 2020/C 371/14 | Case T-604/19: Order of the General Court of 3 August 2020 — Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO — Venta Servicio LED (ISELED) (EU trade mark — Renunciation of the EU designation under an international registration — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 13 |
| 2020/C 371/15 | Case T-613/19: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — ENIL Brussels Office and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Operational programme Regions in Growth — Priority Axis 5 (Regional social infrastructure) — Grant intended to support the deinstitutionalisation of services for elderly people and people with disabilities — Refusal to suspend the call for proposals at the request of organisations for the defence and representation of people with disabilities — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 14 |
| 2020/C 371/16 | Case T-801/19: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — DTE Systems v EUIPO Speed-Buster (PedalBox +) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark PedalBox + — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Misuse of rights — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law) | 15 |
| 2020/C 371/17 | Case T-162/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 August 2020 — Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v EFSA (Interim relief — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Publication of the conclusion on the review conducted by EFSA regarding the reconsideration of the approval of the active substance mancozeb — Request for certain passages to be treated as confidential — Refusal to grant confidential treatment — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case) | 15 |
| 2020/C 371/18 | Case T-358/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 August 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA (Interim measures — Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Reimbursement of sums paid — Debit notes — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency) | 16 |
| 2020/C 371/19 | Case T-494/20: Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Satabank v ECB | 16 |
| 2020/C 371/20 | Case T-533/20: Action brought on 24 August 2020 — Green Power Technologies v Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking | 17 |
| 2020/C 371/21 | Case T-552/20: Action brought on 2 September 2020 — MD v Commission | 18 |
| 2020/C 371/22 | Case T-556/20: Action brought on 4 September 2020 — D&A Pharma v Commission and EMA | 19 |
| 2020/C 371/23 | Case T-558/20: Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT10) | 21 |
| 2020/C 371/24 | Case T-559/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Süzme Peynir) | 22 |
| 2020/C 371/25 | Case T-560/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz) | 22 |
| 2020/C 371/26 | Case T-561/20: Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) | 23 |
| 2020/C 371/27 | Case T-562/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — Upper Echelon Products v EUIPO (Everlasting Comfort) | 24 |
| 2020/C 371/28 | Case T-566/20: Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH) | 24 |
| 2020/C 371/29 | Case T-567/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — ML v Commission | 25 |
| 2020/C 371/30 | Case T-570/20: Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Kedrion v EMA | 26 |
| 2020/C 371/31 | Case T-572/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Spisto v Commission | 27 |
| 2020/C 371/32 | Case T-573/20: Action brought on 14 September 2020 — MG v EIB | 28 |
| 2020/C 371/33 | Case T-581/20: Action brought on 21 September 2020 — YP v Commission | 29 |
| 2020/C 371/34 | Case T-299/19: Order of the General Court of 24 July 2020 — VG v Commission | 30 |
| 2020/C 371/35 | Case T-8/20: Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission | 30 |
| 2020/C 371/36 | Case T-76/20: Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission | 30 |
| 2020/C 371/37 | Case T-450/20: Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Tempora v Parliament | 30 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 371/03

Case C-272/20 P: Appeal brought on 19 June 2020 by Sebastian Veit against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18, Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank

6

2020/C 371/04

Case C-430/20 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2020 by Christoph Klein against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 2 July 2020 in Case T-562/19, Christoph Klein v European Commission

7

General Court

2020/C 371/05

Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Ireland and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid implemented by Ireland — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid — Advance tax decisions (tax rulings) — Selective tax advantages — Arm’s length principle)

8

2020/C 371/06

Case T-659/18: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — ZS v EIB (Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Health status — Partial disability — Time management — Unjustified absences — Reduced compensation — Liability)

9

2020/C 371/07

Case T-371/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (FAKE DUCK) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Earlier EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

9

2020/C 371/08

Case T-376/17: Order of the General Court of 17 August 2020 — Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Suspension of financial aid — Preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

10

2020/C 371/09

Case T-755/18: Order of the General Court of 20 August 2020 — FL Brüterei M-V and Others v Commission (Action for annulment and for damages — Organic farming — Livestock production — Exceptional production rules applicable in case of non-availability of organic farm inputs — Use of non-organic animals — Extension of the period of application of the exceptional production rules — Lack of direct concern — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

10

2020/C 371/10

Case T-22/19: Order of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission (Action for damages — Monetary agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra — Alleged negligence on the part of the Commission regarding the content of the agreement — Alleged negligence on the part of the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the agreement — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

11

2020/C 371/11

Case T-190/19: Order of the General Court of 17 August 2020 — BF v Commission (Action for failure to act — State aid — Operation of water supply and sanitation facilities — Preliminary examination of alleged State aid granted by the German authorities — Second invitation to act — Commission’s position — Second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 — Time limit for bringing an action — Manifest inadmissibility)

12

2020/C 371/12

Case T-272/19: Order of the General Court of 31 July 2020 –TO v EEAS (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Refusal to employ on the ground that the candidate is unfit to perform duties — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Public policy — Delay — Calculation of the time limit — Determination of the date from which the person concerned could have become aware of the content of the decision — Manifest inadmissibility)

12

2020/C 371/13

Case T-354/19: Order of the General Court of 23 July 2020 — Palacio Domecq v EUIPO — Domecq Bodega Las Copas (PALACIO DOMECQ 1778) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

13

2020/C 371/14

Case T-604/19: Order of the General Court of 3 August 2020 — Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO — Venta Servicio LED (ISELED) (EU trade mark — Renunciation of the EU designation under an international registration — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

13

2020/C 371/15

Case T-613/19: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — ENIL Brussels Office and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Operational programme Regions in Growth — Priority Axis 5 (Regional social infrastructure) — Grant intended to support the deinstitutionalisation of services for elderly people and people with disabilities — Refusal to suspend the call for proposals at the request of organisations for the defence and representation of people with disabilities — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

14

2020/C 371/16

Case T-801/19: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — DTE Systems v EUIPO Speed-Buster (PedalBox +) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark PedalBox + — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Misuse of rights — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

15

2020/C 371/17

Case T-162/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 August 2020 — Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v EFSA (Interim relief — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Publication of the conclusion on the review conducted by EFSA regarding the reconsideration of the approval of the active substance mancozeb — Request for certain passages to be treated as confidential — Refusal to grant confidential treatment — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case)

15

2020/C 371/18

Case T-358/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 August 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA (Interim measures — Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Reimbursement of sums paid — Debit notes — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

16

2020/C 371/19

Case T-494/20: Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Satabank v ECB

16

2020/C 371/20

Case T-533/20: Action brought on 24 August 2020 — Green Power Technologies v Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking

17

2020/C 371/21

Case T-552/20: Action brought on 2 September 2020 — MD v Commission

18

2020/C 371/22

Case T-556/20: Action brought on 4 September 2020 — D&A Pharma v Commission and EMA

19

2020/C 371/23

Case T-558/20: Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT10)

21

2020/C 371/24

Case T-559/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Süzme Peynir)

22

2020/C 371/25

Case T-560/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz)

22

2020/C 371/26

Case T-561/20: Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)

23

2020/C 371/27

Case T-562/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — Upper Echelon Products v EUIPO (Everlasting Comfort)

24

2020/C 371/28

Case T-566/20: Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH)

24

2020/C 371/29

Case T-567/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — ML v Commission

25

2020/C 371/30

Case T-570/20: Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Kedrion v EMA

26

2020/C 371/31

Case T-572/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Spisto v Commission

27

2020/C 371/32

Case T-573/20: Action brought on 14 September 2020 — MG v EIB

28

2020/C 371/33

Case T-581/20: Action brought on 21 September 2020 — YP v Commission

29

2020/C 371/34

Case T-299/19: Order of the General Court of 24 July 2020 — VG v Commission

30

2020/C 371/35

Case T-8/20: Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

30

2020/C 371/36

Case T-76/20: Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

30

2020/C 371/37

Case T-450/20: Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Tempora v Parliament

30

---

| EN | For reasons of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality, some information contained in the English and Portuguese versions of this issue was erased or replaced and therefore a new authentic version has been published. |
| --- | --- |

EN

For reasons of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality, some information contained in the English and Portuguese versions of this issue was erased or replaced and therefore a new authentic version has been published.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/1

---

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

(2020/C 371/01)

Last publication

OJ C 359, 26.10.2020

Past publications

OJ C 348, 19.10.2020

OJ C 339, 12.10.2020

OJ C 329, 5.10.2020

OJ C 320, 28.9.2020

OJ C 313, 21.9.2020

OJ C 304, 14.9.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/2

---

Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

(2020/C 371/02)

On 7 October 2020, the General Court, composed of 49 Judges, decided, following the termination of Mr Passer’s functions as a Judge, to amend the decision on the formation of the Chambers of 30 September 2019 (1), as amended (2), and the decision on the assignment of Judges to Chambers of 4 October 2019 (3), as amended (4), for the period from 7 October 2020 to 31 August 2022 and to assign the Judges to Chambers as follows:

First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber, Mr Jaeger, Ms Półtorak, Ms Porchia and Ms Stancu, Judges.

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Jaeger and Ms Półtorak, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Jaeger and Ms Porchia, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Jaeger and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Półtorak and Ms Porchia, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Półtorak and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Porchia and Ms Stancu, Judges.

Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Tomljenović, President of the Chamber, Mr Schalin, Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl, Mr Nõmm and Ms Steinfatt, Judges.

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Tomljenović, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Schalin and Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Schalin and Mr Nõmm, Judges;

Formation C: Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl and Mr Nõmm, Judges.

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Collins, President of the Chamber, Mr Kreuschitz, Mr Csehi, Mr De Baere and Ms Steinfatt, Judges.

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Collins, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Kreuschitz and Mr Csehi, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Kreuschitz and Mr De Baere, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Kreuschitz and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Csehi and Mr De Baere, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Csehi and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

Formation F: Mr De Baere and Ms Steinfatt, Judges.

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Gervasoni, President of the Chamber, Mr Madise, Mr Nihoul, Ms Frendo and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges.

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Gervasoni, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Madise and Mr Nihoul, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Madise and Ms Frendo, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Madise and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Nihoul and Ms Frendo, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Nihoul and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Frendo and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges.

Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Spielmann, President of the Chamber, Mr Öberg, Ms Spineanu-Matei, Mr Mastroianni and Mr Norkus, Judges.

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Spielmann, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Öberg and Ms Spineanu-Matei, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Öberg and Mr Mastroianni, Judges;

Formation C: Ms Spineanu-Matei and Mr Mastroianni, Judges.

Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Marcoulli, President of the Chamber, Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Mr Schwarcz, Mr Iliopoulos and Mr Norkus, Judges.

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Marcoulli, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Schwarcz, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Iliopoulos, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Iliopoulos, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Iliopoulos and Mr Norkus, Judges.

Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr da Silva Passos, President of the Chamber, Mr Valančius, Ms Reine, Mr Truchot and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges.

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr da Silva Passos, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Valančius and Ms Reine, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Valančius and Mr Truchot, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Valančius and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Reine and Mr Truchot, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Reine and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Truchot and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges.

Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Svenningsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Barents, Mr Mac Eochaidh, Ms Pynnä and Mr Laitenberger, Judges.

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Svenningsen, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Barents and Mr Mac Eochaidh, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Barents and Ms Pynnä, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Barents and Mr Laitenberger, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Mac Eochaidh and Ms Pynnä, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Mac Eochaidh and Mr Laitenberger, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Pynnä and Mr Laitenberger, Judges.

Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Costeira, President of the Chamber, Mr Gratsias, Ms Kancheva, Mr Berke and Ms Perišin, Judges.

Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Costeira, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Gratsias and Ms Kancheva, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Gratsias and Mr Berke, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Gratsias and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Kancheva and Mr Berke, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Kancheva and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Berke and Ms Perišin, Judges.

Tenth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kornezov, President of the Chamber, Mr Buttigieg, Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk, Mr Hesse and Ms Stancu, Judges.

Tenth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kornezov, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Buttigieg and Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Buttigieg and Mr. Hesse, Judges;

Formation C: Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Hesse, Judges.

The Second Chamber, composed of four Judges, shall be extended by including a fifth Judge from the Third Chamber. The Fifth Chamber, composed of four Judges, will be enlarged by the addition of a fifth Judge from the Sixth Chamber. The Tenth Chamber composed of four Judges, shall be enlarged by the addition of a fifth Judge from the First Chamber. The fifth Judge shall be designated according to the reverse order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure for the period ending on 31 August 2022.

The General Court confirms its decision of 4 October 2019 that the First, Fourth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers shall hear cases brought under Article 270 TFEU and, where appropriate, Article 50a of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and that the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Chambers shall hear cases relating to intellectual property rights referred to in Title IV of the Rules of Procedure.

It also confirms that:

| — | the President and the Vice-President shall not be attached permanently to a Chamber; |
| --- | --- |

—

the President and the Vice-President shall not be attached permanently to a Chamber;

| — | in the course of each judicial year, the Vice-President shall sit in each of the ten Chambers sitting with five Judges, on the basis of one case per Chamber in the following order: |
| --- | --- |

—

in the course of each judicial year, the Vice-President shall sit in each of the ten Chambers sitting with five Judges, on the basis of one case per Chamber in the following order:

| — | the first case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the First Chamber, the Second Chamber, the Third Chamber, the Fourth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber; |
| --- | --- |

—

the first case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the First Chamber, the Second Chamber, the Third Chamber, the Fourth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber;

| — | the third case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the Sixth Chamber, the Seventh Chamber, the Eighth Chamber, the Ninth Chamber and the Tenth Chamber. |
| --- | --- |

—

the third case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the Sixth Chamber, the Seventh Chamber, the Eighth Chamber, the Ninth Chamber and the Tenth Chamber.

Where the Chamber in which the Vice-President sits is composed of:

| — | five Judges; the extended Chamber shall be composed of the Vice-President, Judges from the Chamber sitting with three Judges originally seized as well as one of the other Judges of the Chamber in question, determined on the basis of the reverse order to the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

five Judges; the extended Chamber shall be composed of the Vice-President, Judges from the Chamber sitting with three Judges originally seized as well as one of the other Judges of the Chamber in question, determined on the basis of the reverse order to the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure;

| — | four Judges; the extended Chamber shall be composed of the Vice-President, Judges from the Chamber sitting with three Judges originally seized and the fourth Judge of the Chamber in question. |
| --- | --- |

—

four Judges; the extended Chamber shall be composed of the Vice-President, Judges from the Chamber sitting with three Judges originally seized and the fourth Judge of the Chamber in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019, p. 3.

(2)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020, p. 2, and OJ C 114, 6.4.2020, p. 2.

(3)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019, p. 3.

(4)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020, p. 2, and OJ C 114, 6.4.2020, p. 2.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/6

---

Appeal brought on 19 June 2020 by Sebastian Veit against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18, Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank

(Case C-272/20 P)

(2020/C 371/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18;

| — | annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 3 January 2018 on the classification of the appellant with effect from 1 January 2018, as clarified by the decision of the European Central Bank of 25 May 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 3 January 2018 on the classification of the appellant with effect from 1 January 2018, as clarified by the decision of the European Central Bank of 25 May 2018;

| — | order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The judgment under appeal infringes EU law. The General Court misinterpreted the general principle of equal treatment under Articles 20, 51(1) and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The General Court erred in deciding that the difference in treatment of internal and external candidates for recruitment with regard to their classification in step by the European Central Bank on the basis of various rules was justified and proportionate.

The case-law of the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the provisions of the Staff Regulations on the classification in step of an official in service, which was applied mutatis mutandis to the case by the General Court, does not correspond with the facts that have given rise to the dispute.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/7

---

Appeal brought on 11 September 2020 by Christoph Klein against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 2 July 2020 in Case T-562/19, Christoph Klein v European Commission

(Case C-430/20 P)

(2020/C 371/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 in Case T-562/19; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 in Case T-562/19;

| — | declare the action admissible and that the European Commission breached its obligations under the Treaty by failing to act in the safeguard procedure initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 January 1998 concerning the CE-marked medical device ‘Inhaler Broncho-Air’ and not issuing a decision in accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 93/42/EEC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible and that the European Commission breached its obligations under the Treaty by failing to act in the safeguard procedure initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 January 1998 concerning the CE-marked medical device ‘Inhaler Broncho-Air’ and not issuing a decision in accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 93/42/EEC (1);

| — | in the alternative, set aside the order of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the order of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court distorted facts and evidence, erred in its classification of the facts and infringed EU law, namely Article 265 TFEU and the right to a fair hearing, in so far as it found that the action was brought out of time and that the appellant did not have standing to bring proceedings in his own right.

In addition, the General Court misinterpreted EU law and infringed Article 8(2) of Directive 93/42.

Finally, the order of the General Court under appeal is vitiated by a failure to state reasons.

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medicinal devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1).

---

General Court

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Ireland and Others v Commission

(Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid implemented by Ireland - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid - Advance tax decisions (tax rulings) - Selective tax advantages - Arm’s length principle)

(2020/C 371/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-778/16: Ireland (represented by: K. Duggan, M. Browne, J. Quaney and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and P. Gallagher, M. Collins, Senior Counsel, P. Baker QC, S. Kingston, C. Donnelly, A. Goodman and B. Doherty, Barristers)

Applicants in Case T-892/16: Apple Sales International (Cork, Ireland), Apple Operations Europe (Cork) (represented by: A. von Bonin and E. van der Stok, lawyers, D. Beard QC, and A. Bates, L. Osepciu and J. Bourke, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in Case T-778/16, in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: T. Uri, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and S. Naudin, lawyers)

Intervener in Case T-892/16, in support of the applicants: Ireland (represented by: K. Duggan, J. Quaney, M. Browne, A Joyce, P. Gallagher, M. Collins, P. Baker, S. Kingston, C. Donnelly, and B. Doherty)

Intervener in Case T-778/16, in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and A. Kramarczyk-Szaładzińska, acting as Agents)

Intervener in Case T-892/16, in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Zatschler, M. Sánchez Rydelski and C. Simpson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1283 of 30 August 2016 on State aid SA.38373 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by Ireland to Apple (OJ 2017 L 187, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 for the purposes of the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 for the purposes of the present judgment;

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1283 of 30 August 2016 on State aid SA.38373 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by Ireland to Apple; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1283 of 30 August 2016 on State aid SA.38373 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by Ireland to Apple;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Ireland, in the context of Case T-778/16, and those of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Ireland, in the context of Case T-778/16, and those of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe;

| 4. | Orders Ireland, in the context of Case T-892/16, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Poland and the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ireland, in the context of Case T-892/16, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Poland and the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — ZS v EIB

(Case T-659/18) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Health status - Partial disability - Time management - Unjustified absences - Reduced compensation - Liability)

(2020/C 371/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZS (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, the annulment of the decisions of the ECB of 27 February and 22 December 2017 fixing the compensation payable to the applicant as a result of his disability and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 27 September 2017; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 27 September 2017;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders  ZS (*1) to pay half of his costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders  ZS (*1) to pay half of his costs;

| 4. | Orders the EIB to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs of  ZS (*1). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the EIB to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs of  ZS (*1).

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (FAKE DUCK)

(Case T-371/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK - Earlier EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 371/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: A. Visentin, M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. De Vietro, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 (Case R 1117/2018-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Forest Srl and Itinerant Show Room.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Itinerant Show Room to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Itinerant Show Room to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/10

---

Order of the General Court of 17 August 2020 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-376/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Suspension of financial aid - Preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 371/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, B. Paziewska, M. Pawlicka and K. Straś, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, M. Kaduczak and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of European Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 2104 final of 4 April 2017 extending the suspension of monthly payments to the Republic of Poland concerning preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector within the framework of the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/10

---

Order of the General Court of 20 August 2020 — FL Brüterei M-V and Others v Commission

(Case T-755/18) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Organic farming - Livestock production - Exceptional production rules applicable in case of non-availability of organic farm inputs - Use of non-organic animals - Extension of the period of application of the exceptional production rules - Lack of direct concern - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 371/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: FL Brüterei M-V GmbH (Finkenthal, Germany), Erdegut GmbH (Finkenthal), Ökofarm Groß Markow GmbH (Lelkendorf, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, B. Eggers and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

Re:

In the first place, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 1(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1584 of 22 October 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2018 L 264, p. 1), and, in the second place, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for, first, the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption of that article and, second, the harm allegedly suffered by FL Brüterei M-V as a result of the Commission’s failure to ensure compliance by the Dutch authorities with Article 42 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | FL Brüterei M-V GmbH, Erdegut GmbH and Ökofarm Groß Markow GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

FL Brüterei M-V GmbH, Erdegut GmbH and Ökofarm Groß Markow GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/11

---

Order of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission

(Case T-22/19) (1)

(Action for damages - Monetary agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra - Alleged negligence on the part of the Commission regarding the content of the agreement - Alleged negligence on the part of the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the agreement - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 371/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Roser Noguer Enríquez (Andorra-la-Vella, Andorra), TB, Successors d’Higini Cierco García, SA (Andorra la Vella), Cierco Martínez 2 2003, SL (Andorra la Vella) (represented by: J. Álvarez González and S. San Felipe Menéndez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of, first, negligence on the part of the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the Monetary Agreement concluded on 30 June 2011 between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra and, second, the Commission’s negligence regarding the content of that agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Roser Noguer Enríquez, TB, Successors d’Higini Cierco García, SA and Cierco Martínez 2 2003, SL, are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Roser Noguer Enríquez, TB, Successors d’Higini Cierco García, SA and Cierco Martínez 2 2003, SL, are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/12

---

Order of the General Court of 17 August 2020 — BF v Commission

(Case T-190/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act - State aid - Operation of water supply and sanitation facilities - Preliminary examination of alleged State aid granted by the German authorities - Second invitation to act - Commission’s position - Second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 - Time limit for bringing an action - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 371/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BF (represented by: S. Gesterkamp, lawyer, and C. Koenig, Professor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a decision closing the preliminary examination procedure regarding alleged State aid granted by the German authorities to both company A and company B.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | BF shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

BF shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/12

---

Order of the General Court of 31 July 2020 –TO v EEAS

(Case T-272/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Refusal to employ on the ground that the candidate is unfit to perform duties - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Public policy - Delay - Calculation of the time limit - Determination of the date from which the person concerned could have become aware of the content of the decision - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 371/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, annulment, first, of the EEAS decision of 15 June 2018 informing the applicant that she did not fulfil all of the conditions of employment laid down in Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and that she could not be recruited as a member of the contract staff of the EEAS and, second, of the decision of the EEAS of 14 January 2019 rejecting her complaint of 14 September 2018, and, on the other hand, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

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

2.

TO shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/13

---

Order of the General Court of 23 July 2020 — Palacio Domecq v EUIPO — Domecq Bodega Las Copas (PALACIO DOMECQ 1778)

(Case T-354/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 371/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Palacio Domecq, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Otero Iglesias, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Domecq Bodega Las Copas, SL (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2019 (Case R 867/2018-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Domecq Bodega Las Copas and Palacio Domecq.

Operative part of the judgment

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

1.

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

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/13

---

Order of the General Court of 3 August 2020 — Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO — Venta Servicio LED (ISELED)

(Case T-604/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Renunciation of the EU designation under an international registration - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 371/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Inova Semiconductors GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Venta Servicio LED, SL (Martorell, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 (Case R 2149/2018-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Venta Servicio LED and Inova Semiconductors.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Inova Semiconductors GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Inova Semiconductors GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/14

---

Order of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — ENIL Brussels Office and Others v Commission

(Case T-613/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - ERDF - Operational programme ‘Regions in Growth’ - Priority Axis 5 (Regional social infrastructure) - Grant intended to support the deinstitutionalisation of services for elderly people and people with disabilities - Refusal to suspend the call for proposals at the request of organisations for the defence and representation of people with disabilities - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 371/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL Brussels Office) (Brussels, Belgium), Validity Foundation-Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (Budapest, Hungary), Center for Independent Living Association (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by B. Van Vooren and L. Gorywoda, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Hradil, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 24 May 2019 by which that institution took a position on the applicants’ request to act addressed to the Commission, under Article 265 TFEU, by letter of 26 April 2019 and which was intended, in essence, to require the Commission to suspend the call for proposals for the award of grants under the procedure ‘Support for the deinstitutionalisation of social services for elderly people and people with disabilities’ (BG16RFOP0001-5.002) and all related payments.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is rejected as inadmissible.

| 2. | European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL Brussels Office), Validity Foundation-Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL Brussels Office), Validity Foundation-Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/15

---

Order of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — DTE Systems v EUIPO Speed-Buster (PedalBox +)

(Case T-801/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark PedalBox + - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Misuse of rights - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law)

(2020/C 371/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DTE Systems GmbH (Recklinghausen, Germany) (represented by: U. Vietmeyer, 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 intervening before the General Court: Speed-Buster GmbH & Co. KG (Sinzig, Germany) (represented by: C. Gries, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 1934/2018-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Speed-Buster and DTE Systems.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | DTE Systems GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

DTE Systems GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/15

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 August 2020 — Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v EFSA

(Case T-162/20 R)

(Interim relief - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Publication of the conclusion on the review conducted by EFSA regarding the reconsideration of the approval of the active substance mancozeb - Request for certain passages to be treated as confidential - Refusal to grant confidential treatment - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case)

(2020/C 371/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and by G. Rusconi and O. Cesana, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of EFSA Decision EFSA/LA/DEC/22911258/2020 of 28 January 2020 concerning the request for internal review of the decision relating to the applicant’s requests for confidential treatment of the conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of the active substance mancozeb.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 7 April 2020 made in Case T-162/20 R is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 7 April 2020 made in Case T-162/20 R is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/16

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 18 August 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA

(Case T-358/20 R)

(Interim measures - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Reimbursement of sums paid - Debit notes - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

(2020/C 371/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Net Technologies Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of two debit notes issued by the REA on 7 May 2020 requiring payment by the applicant of the sum of EUR 188 477,27 no later than 22 June 2020.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 18 June 2020, Net Technologies Finland v REA (T-358/20 R) is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 18 June 2020, Net Technologies Finland v REA (T-358/20 R) is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/16

---

Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Satabank v ECB

(Case T-494/20)

(2020/C 371/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Satabank plc (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision dated 15 May 2020 by which the ECB refused to take over direct supervision and give instructions to the Competent Person so as to ensure that the Bank is no longer denied access to its offices, information, systems, files, documents, staff and resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 15 May 2020 by which the ECB refused to take over direct supervision and give instructions to the Competent Person so as to ensure that the Bank is no longer denied access to its offices, information, systems, files, documents, staff and resources;

| — | 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 eight pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed that the requested action is beyond the competence of the ECB and also did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for its decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed that the requested action is beyond the competence of the ECB and also did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for its decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated its obligations pursuant to Art. 6(5)(b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) and Article 67 of the Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (2) of the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated its obligations pursuant to Art. 6(5)(b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) and Article 67 of the Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (2) of the European Central Bank.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle that the ECB has to act in a manner that makes compliance with regulatory obligations possible. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle that the ECB has to act in a manner that makes compliance with regulatory obligations possible.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed an abuse of power (détournement de pouvoir). |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed an abuse of power (détournement de pouvoir).

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/17

---

Action brought on 24 August 2020 — Green Power Technologies v Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking

(Case T-533/20)

(2020/C 371/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Green Power Technologies, S.L. (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain) (represented by: A. León González and A. Martínez Solís, lawyers)

Defendants: Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare and hold that, by its report of 9 July 2018, its decision confirming that report by email of 12 June 2020 and its conduct in the present case, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has infringed the legal acquis of the European Union and, consequently, annul that report; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare and hold that, by its report of 9 July 2018, its decision confirming that report by email of 12 June 2020 and its conduct in the present case, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has infringed the legal acquis of the European Union and, consequently, annul that report;

| — | declare and hold that GPTECH correctly fulfilled its contractual obligations under the projects POLLUX (100205), IoE (269374), MOTORBRAIN (270693) and AGATE (325630) and consequently find that the expenses, which ECSEL sought to recover through debit note 4440200016, are eligible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare and hold that GPTECH correctly fulfilled its contractual obligations under the projects POLLUX (100205), IoE (269374), MOTORBRAIN (270693) and AGATE (325630) and consequently find that the expenses, which ECSEL sought to recover through debit note 4440200016, are eligible;

| — | by reason of the foregoing, find that ECSEL’s claim in the amount of EUR 200 930,35 is inadmissible and unfounded, and, therefore, annul the debit note issued by ECSEL and the pre-information letter of 20 January 2019 that gave rise to that debit note; |
| --- | --- |

—

by reason of the foregoing, find that ECSEL’s claim in the amount of EUR 200 930,35 is inadmissible and unfounded, and, therefore, annul the debit note issued by ECSEL and the pre-information letter of 20 January 2019 that gave rise to that debit note;

| — | in the alternative, in the event that the debit note is not annulled, find that the Commission is liable in respect of unjust enrichment; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event that the debit note is not annulled, find that the Commission is liable in respect of unjust enrichment;

| — | order the Commission and ECSEL to pay the costs or, in the event that the claims in the present action are not upheld, refrain from ordering the applicant to pay the costs, in view of the complexity of this case, and the issues. of fact and law that the case presents. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and ECSEL to pay the costs or, in the event that the claims in the present action are not upheld, refrain from ordering the applicant to pay the costs, in view of the complexity of this case, and the issues. of fact and law that the case presents.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action sets out applications for annulment and applications based on Article 272 TFEU. In respect of the applications based on Article 272, the applicant requests the General Court to find that there is no need to order the reimbursement of the amounts allegedly owed and of the damages set out in the debit note issued by ECSEL.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement, by OLAF and ECSEL, of the fundamental rights of the European Union, in the sense that the general scope of those rights implies that none of those bodies may act in a way that infringes fundamental rights and the legal acquis of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that OLAF disregarded the usual practices of GPTECH and did not rely on technical specialists in R&D to enable it to understand that those practices. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that OLAF did not have regard to GPTECH’s arguments and did not produce the annexes on which it based its decision, which is an infringement of the right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and the right of the defence (Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, based on the eligibility of the expenses which the debit note in question seeks to recover and infringement of Articles II.4, II.7, first paragraph, II.14, first paragraph, (a), (b), (c) and (f); and II.15 of the 7th Research Framework Programme Grant Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging ECSEL’s unjust enrichment, in so far as the projects have been duly completed. |
| --- | --- |

5.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/18

---

Action brought on 2 September 2020 — MD v Commission

(Case T-552/20)

(2020/C 371/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: MD (represented by: A. Ricci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 14 during the 2019 promotion exercise (Administrative Notice No 32-2019 of 14.11.2019).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to state sufficient reasons in the decision rejecting his complaint. The applicant raises in this regard:






  — | Failure by the appointing authority to set out, in the decision rejecting the complaint, the individual and relevant ground justifying the decision not to promote the applicant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state sufficient reasons in the decision rejecting his complaint. The applicant raises in this regard:

—

Failure by the appointing authority to set out, in the decision rejecting the complaint, the individual and relevant ground justifying the decision not to promote the applicant;

| — | Complete failure to state reasons in relation to the second head of complaint (infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in the comparative examination in particular); |
| --- | --- |

—

Complete failure to state reasons in relation to the second head of complaint (infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in the comparative examination in particular);

| — | Insufficient statement of reasons in relation to the third head of complaint (infringement of Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations). |
| --- | --- |

—

Insufficient statement of reasons in relation to the third head of complaint (infringement of Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in particular on account of the absence of actual consideration of the comparative merits of the officials. The applicant raises in this regard:






  — | Manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant’s level of responsibility during the entire reference period as compared with that of the other promoted officials referred to in the application; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in particular on account of the absence of actual consideration of the comparative merits of the officials. The applicant raises in this regard:

—

Manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant’s level of responsibility during the entire reference period as compared with that of the other promoted officials referred to in the application;

| — | Manifest error of assessment regarding the criterion of the use of languages other than the person’s mother tongue, in the execution of his or her duties, in comparison with the other promoted officials referred to in the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Manifest error of assessment regarding the criterion of the use of languages other than the person’s mother tongue, in the execution of his or her duties, in comparison with the other promoted officials referred to in the application;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging age discrimination in relation to the alleged ‘practical effect’ of every promotion. The applicant raises in this regard:






  — | Presumption that the failure to promote the applicant was justified by the absence of financial advantage of the promotion itself on account of the age of the applicant, close to retirement at the material time; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging age discrimination in relation to the alleged ‘practical effect’ of every promotion. The applicant raises in this regard:

—

Presumption that the failure to promote the applicant was justified by the absence of financial advantage of the promotion itself on account of the age of the applicant, close to retirement at the material time;

| — | Prohibition of age discrimination and introduction of an unlawful financial criterion as an additional criterion for promotion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Prohibition of age discrimination and introduction of an unlawful financial criterion as an additional criterion for promotion.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations. The applicant raises in this regard:






  — | Failure to comply with the average rate for promotion to grade AD 14, calculated over a five-year period; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations. The applicant raises in this regard:

—

Failure to comply with the average rate for promotion to grade AD 14, calculated over a five-year period;

| — | Failure to communicate information concerning compliance with Article 6(2) to the Commission staff or the applicant in response to his complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to communicate information concerning compliance with Article 6(2) to the Commission staff or the applicant in response to his complaint;

| — | Burden of proof on the defendant institution, having regard to the specific context. |
| --- | --- |

—

Burden of proof on the defendant institution, having regard to the specific context.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/19

---

Action brought on 4 September 2020 — D&A Pharma v Commission and EMA

(Case T-556/20)

(2020/C 371/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Debregeas et associés Pharma (D&A Pharma) (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Viguié and D. Krzisch, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 6 July 2020 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Hopveus — sodium oxybate’, a medicinal product for human use; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 6 July 2020 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Hopveus — sodium oxybate’, a medicinal product for human use;

| — | order the European Commission and the EMA to pay all the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission and the EMA to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency and, secondly, of Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use (‘the CHMP’). The applicant submits that the procedure that led to the CHMP opinion was irregular in so far as the CHMP was required to consult the Scientific Advisory Group on Psychiatry, a competent and independent body, given that it was asked to do so in the context of the procedure for re-examining the application for a marketing authorisation (‘MA’) for Hopveus. However, the CHMP did not do so. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency and, secondly, of Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use (‘the CHMP’). The applicant submits that the procedure that led to the CHMP opinion was irregular in so far as the CHMP was required to consult the Scientific Advisory Group on Psychiatry, a competent and independent body, given that it was asked to do so in the context of the procedure for re-examining the application for a marketing authorisation (‘MA’) for Hopveus. However, the CHMP did not do so.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 726/2004 in so far as that the procedure before the CHMP was vitiated by a lack of impartiality owing to conflicts of interest on the part of certain experts on the ad hoc committee convened by the CHMP. The applicant claims that experts who work, in particular, as advisors to pharmaceutical companies in the development of treatments that may be in competition with Hopveus may not participate in ad hoc expert groups. Accordingly, their participation failed to comply with the principle of objective impartiality, as defined by the Courts of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, and gave rise to reasonable doubt as to whether the applicant’s application for a conditional MA was carried out in a neutral and objective manner. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 726/2004 in so far as that the procedure before the CHMP was vitiated by a lack of impartiality owing to conflicts of interest on the part of certain experts on the ad hoc committee convened by the CHMP. The applicant claims that experts who work, in particular, as advisors to pharmaceutical companies in the development of treatments that may be in competition with Hopveus may not participate in ad hoc expert groups. Accordingly, their participation failed to comply with the principle of objective impartiality, as defined by the Courts of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, and gave rise to reasonable doubt as to whether the applicant’s application for a conditional MA was carried out in a neutral and objective manner.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the minutes of the ad hoc committee meeting of 6 April 2020 do not comply with the provisions of Article 3.7 of the EMA document ‘Mandate, objectives and rules of procedure of the Scientific Advisory Groups (SAGs) and ad hoc expert groups’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the minutes of the ad hoc committee meeting of 6 April 2020 do not comply with the provisions of Article 3.7 of the EMA document ‘Mandate, objectives and rules of procedure of the Scientific Advisory Groups (SAGs) and ad hoc expert groups’.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging that by refusing to grant a conditional MA on the ground that ‘the benefit-risk balance of Hopveus [was] not favourable’, the European Commission failed to comply with the framework laid down by Commission Regulation No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and thereby vitiated the contested decision by breaching the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. According to the applicant, that conclusion is based on an error of law and a manifest error of assessment, since Regulation No 507/2006 does not make the grant of a conditional MA on the submission by the applicant of exhaustive clinical data free of methodological limitations. Conditional MAs ‘are based on data that is less complete than that normally required and are subject to specific obligations’. In the present case, those studies were even reviewed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (‘the PRAC’) and by the CHMP in the context of the annual evaluation of sodium oxybate based medicines and their validity was confirmed by that evaluation and by the European Commission in relation to the bioequivalent medicine Alcover. The applicant claims that the EMA could not therefore consider that the limitations of the studies submitted by the applicant, some of which were validated in a 2010 scientific opinion, were major and decisive as regards a conditional MA when similar criticisms had not been made in the context of unconditional MAs granted to competitors. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging that by refusing to grant a conditional MA on the ground that ‘the benefit-risk balance of Hopveus [was] not favourable’, the European Commission failed to comply with the framework laid down by Commission Regulation No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and thereby vitiated the contested decision by breaching the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. According to the applicant, that conclusion is based on an error of law and a manifest error of assessment, since Regulation No 507/2006 does not make the grant of a conditional MA on the submission by the applicant of exhaustive clinical data free of methodological limitations. Conditional MAs ‘are based on data that is less complete than that normally required and are subject to specific obligations’. In the present case, those studies were even reviewed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (‘the PRAC’) and by the CHMP in the context of the annual evaluation of sodium oxybate based medicines and their validity was confirmed by that evaluation and by the European Commission in relation to the bioequivalent medicine Alcover. The applicant claims that the EMA could not therefore consider that the limitations of the studies submitted by the applicant, some of which were validated in a 2010 scientific opinion, were major and decisive as regards a conditional MA when similar criticisms had not been made in the context of unconditional MAs granted to competitors.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that, by refusing to grant the conditional MA on the ground that ‘the benefit-risk balance of Hopveus [was] not favourable’, the European Commission vitiated its decision by breaching the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, combined with a manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 16 of Regulation No 726/2004. The applicant claims that the EMA entities (CHMP and PRAC) issued contrary opinions on the respective benefit-risk balances of Alcover and Hopveus, despite the fact that the bioequivalence of these medicines is recognised and that they are both intended to treat the same pathology. Those differing opinions cannot be explained by any objective difference, in particular with regard to the objectives of European legislation on medicinal products. Furthermore, the benefit-risk balance cannot differ between pre-marketing and post-marketing analysis. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that, by refusing to grant the conditional MA on the ground that ‘the benefit-risk balance of Hopveus [was] not favourable’, the European Commission vitiated its decision by breaching the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, combined with a manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 16 of Regulation No 726/2004. The applicant claims that the EMA entities (CHMP and PRAC) issued contrary opinions on the respective benefit-risk balances of Alcover and Hopveus, despite the fact that the bioequivalence of these medicines is recognised and that they are both intended to treat the same pathology. Those differing opinions cannot be explained by any objective difference, in particular with regard to the objectives of European legislation on medicinal products. Furthermore, the benefit-risk balance cannot differ between pre-marketing and post-marketing analysis.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringed the principles of equal treatment and consistency between the opinions of the EMA entities, and the principle of good administration, since the CHMP and the PRAC constantly issued contradictory opinions concerning the outpatient and inpatient administration of Hopveus and Alcover. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringed the principles of equal treatment and consistency between the opinions of the EMA entities, and the principle of good administration, since the CHMP and the PRAC constantly issued contradictory opinions concerning the outpatient and inpatient administration of Hopveus and Alcover.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/21

---

Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT10)

(Case T-558/20)

(2020/C 371/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GT10 — Application for registration No 14 738 306

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2020 in Case R 2554/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;

| — | Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;

| — | Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/22

---

Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Süzme Peynir)

(Case T-559/20)

(2020/C 371/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Johnson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sütas süt ürünleri AS (Bursa, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PINAR Süzme Peynir — International registration No 1 394 295

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2020 in Case R 2127/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/22

---

Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz)

(Case T-560/20)

(2020/C 371/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Johnson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sütas süt ürünleri AS (Bursa, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz — International registration No 1 396 036

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2020 in Case R 2126/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/23

---

Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)

(Case T-561/20)

(2020/C 371/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and P. Ruess, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Vita — European Union trade mark No 9 993 361

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 in Case R 425/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/24

---

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — Upper Echelon Products v EUIPO (Everlasting Comfort)

(Case T-562/20)

(2020/C 371/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Upper Echelon Products LLC (Austin, Texas, United States) (represented by: M. Izquierdo Blanco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Everlasting Comfort — Application for registration No 11 429 637

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 in Case R 952/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and grant trademark No 11 429 637 for all the products requested; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and grant trademark No 11 429 637 for all the products requested;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/24

---

Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH)

(Case T-566/20)

(2020/C 371/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Residencial Palladium SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

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: Figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH — EU trade mark No 8 564 701

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2020 in Case R 1542/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No o8 564 701invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No o8 564 701invalid;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the Board of Appeal erred in basing its decision on the applicant not having duly substantiated the use and the more than mere local significance of the earlier unregistered sign GRAND HOTEL PALLADDIUM.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/25

---

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — ML v Commission

(Case T-567/20)

(2020/C 371/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ML (represented by: L. Levi and V. Vandenbussche, 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;

consequently:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2020 not to accept the applicant’s application in call for tender no [confidential] (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2020 not to accept the applicant’s application in call for tender no [confidential] (1);

| — | order compensation for the harm suffered consisting in the loss of opportunity to have its tender evaluated and to be awarded the contract, estimated at EUR 1 500 000 over a period of ten years; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation for the harm suffered consisting in the loss of opportunity to have its tender evaluated and to be awarded the contract, estimated at EUR 1 500 000 over a period of ten years;

| — | order the symbolic payment of one euro by way of damages, subject to increase; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the symbolic payment of one euro by way of damages, subject to increase;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant considers in that regard that the statement of reasons for the contested decision is inadequate, in particular in relation to the criterion of economic and financial capacity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant considers in that regard that the statement of reasons for the contested decision is inadequate, in particular in relation to the criterion of economic and financial capacity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the tender specifications and manifest error of assessment. According to the contested decision, the applicant met neither the criteria relating to economic and financial capacity nor those relating to technical and professional capacity. The applicant considers, first, that the letter of guarantee it submitted should have led the defendant to conclude that the criterion of economic and financial capacity was met. Second, as regards the criterion of technical and professional capacity, the applicant considers that it met the criterion requiring it to justify the management of at least two operations with the label [confidential] or any other equivalent label. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the tender specifications and manifest error of assessment. According to the contested decision, the applicant met neither the criteria relating to economic and financial capacity nor those relating to technical and professional capacity. The applicant considers, first, that the letter of guarantee it submitted should have led the defendant to conclude that the criterion of economic and financial capacity was met. Second, as regards the criterion of technical and professional capacity, the applicant considers that it met the criterion requiring it to justify the management of at least two operations with the label [confidential] or any other equivalent label.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringement of the principle of proportionality and point 18.7 of Annex I to the Financial Regulation (2). According to the applicant, the defendant based its decision on information that was not contained in the tender documents and on which it did not allow it to comment before drawing adverse consequences from it. Moreover, the applicant adds that, if the defendant considered that the guarantor company did not meet the applicable selection criteria, it should not have rejected the tender as a whole, but should have required it to be replaced. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringement of the principle of proportionality and point 18.7 of Annex I to the Financial Regulation (2). According to the applicant, the defendant based its decision on information that was not contained in the tender documents and on which it did not allow it to comment before drawing adverse consequences from it. Moreover, the applicant adds that, if the defendant considered that the guarantor company did not meet the applicable selection criteria, it should not have rejected the tender as a whole, but should have required it to be replaced.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/26

---

Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Kedrion v EMA

(Case T-570/20)

(2020/C 371/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Kedrion SpA (Barga, Italy) (represented by: V. Salvatore, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision; and

| — | order the European Medicines Agency to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Medicines Agency to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the decision refusing the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents, adopted by the European Medicines Agency under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (doc.: EMA/336464/2020) (1). The application concerned documents submitted by a new service provider in respect of the collection and fragmentation of plasma in Italy, provided by Italian centres.

In addition to the reasons for refusing access to the requested documents, which had already been set out in the decision refusing the original application and were reiterated in part in the contested decision, EMA further stated that the refusal to grant access had to be considered justified in view of the fact that the document requested contains information also included in form 3.2.S of the request for marketing authorisation (MA) for a medicinal product as well as information concerning contractual arrangements and agreements between the holder of the PMF (Plasma Master File) and the centres, therefore stressing the need to protect such information in so far as it is classified as commercially sensitive.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001






  — | The applicant submits in this regard that the right of access to documents is one of the means by which the principle of transparency — one of the fundamental principles on which the European Union itself is founded, to the extent that it is stated in the first article of the Treaty on European Union — is put into effect and guaranteed. As a result, the institution to which the application was made cannot merely state that it does not grant access to the document because it contains confidential information; instead it must conduct a detailed and accurate examination of its contents in order to allow access to the document after any parts or pieces of information considered commercially sensitive have been redacted in order to protect their confidentiality. The Agency may not generically rely on the protection of business arrangements or agreements which may be reflected in the PMF, expressing fears of detriment to the holder’s interests, where that objection is irrelevant as regards the application for access to the part of the document which contains the list of collection centres. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

—

The applicant submits in this regard that the right of access to documents is one of the means by which the principle of transparency — one of the fundamental principles on which the European Union itself is founded, to the extent that it is stated in the first article of the Treaty on European Union — is put into effect and guaranteed. As a result, the institution to which the application was made cannot merely state that it does not grant access to the document because it contains confidential information; instead it must conduct a detailed and accurate examination of its contents in order to allow access to the document after any parts or pieces of information considered commercially sensitive have been redacted in order to protect their confidentiality. The Agency may not generically rely on the protection of business arrangements or agreements which may be reflected in the PMF, expressing fears of detriment to the holder’s interests, where that objection is irrelevant as regards the application for access to the part of the document which contains the list of collection centres.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful on account of a misuse of powers, a lack of reasoning and illogical and contradictory reasoning.






  — | The applicant submits in this regard that Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides that, even where the document requested contains commercially sensitive information, access may be permitted where there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information contained therein. In that regard, the defendant, invoking case-law, states that it is for the applicant to refer to specific circumstances to establish an overriding public interest which justifies the disclosure of the documents containing commercially sensitive information. However, that cannot (i) exempt the institution to which the application was made from recognising an overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of the document when it is easily recognisable, or (ii) justify the conclusion, in respect of the circumstances referred to by the applicant, based on the observation that since these were not the findings from inspections carried out in the past it must be held that the changeover between undertakings involved in the management of the service of collecting plasma produced from blood banks, as well as the production, storage and delivery of medicinal products derived from plasma, can occur smoothly without undermining the public interest. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful on account of a misuse of powers, a lack of reasoning and illogical and contradictory reasoning.

—

The applicant submits in this regard that Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides that, even where the document requested contains commercially sensitive information, access may be permitted where there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information contained therein. In that regard, the defendant, invoking case-law, states that it is for the applicant to refer to specific circumstances to establish an overriding public interest which justifies the disclosure of the documents containing commercially sensitive information. However, that cannot (i) exempt the institution to which the application was made from recognising an overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of the document when it is easily recognisable, or (ii) justify the conclusion, in respect of the circumstances referred to by the applicant, based on the observation that since these were not the findings from inspections carried out in the past it must be held that the changeover between undertakings involved in the management of the service of collecting plasma produced from blood banks, as well as the production, storage and delivery of medicinal products derived from plasma, can occur smoothly without undermining the public interest.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/27

---

Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Spisto v Commission

(Case T-572/20)

(2020/C 371/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amanda Spisto (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 24 September 2019 rejecting her request for review of competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Field 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 24 September 2019 rejecting her request for review of competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Field 1;

| — | annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint;

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging illegality of the competition notice on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted, on the ground that it breached the principles of legal certainty, transparency and predictability, not only in the assessment of the selection criteria but also as regards the ‘relevance’ to be assessed and found by the members of the EPSO selection board in the ‘talent screener’ test. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality of the competition notice on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted, on the ground that it breached the principles of legal certainty, transparency and predictability, not only in the assessment of the selection criteria but also as regards the ‘relevance’ to be assessed and found by the members of the EPSO selection board in the ‘talent screener’ test.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that no statement of reasons was given for the contested decision. The applicant submits that, after the EPSO selection board’s decision, it was not possible to ascertain from the contested decision how the assessment was made, the criteria that were used or the way in which relevance to questions was determined. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that no statement of reasons was given for the contested decision. The applicant submits that, after the EPSO selection board’s decision, it was not possible to ascertain from the contested decision how the assessment was made, the criteria that were used or the way in which relevance to questions was determined.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/28

---

Action brought on 14 September 2020 — MG v EIB

(Case T-573/20)

(2020/C 371/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MG (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Findings

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

and accordingly:

| — | annul the decision of the EIB of 11 October 2018 by which the applicant was denied family benefits (including in particular day care and CPE costs unduly deducted by the EIB from the salary of the applicant until November 2019) and derived financial rights (including in particular tax reliefs and reimbursement of the medical expenses of the applicant’s dependent children); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the EIB of 11 October 2018 by which the applicant was denied family benefits (including in particular day care and CPE costs unduly deducted by the EIB from the salary of the applicant until November 2019) and derived financial rights (including in particular tax reliefs and reimbursement of the medical expenses of the applicant’s dependent children);

| — | if necessary, annul the letter/decision of 7 January 2019 rejecting all of the applicant’s requests; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the letter/decision of 7 January 2019 rejecting all of the applicant’s requests;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision of the EIB dated 30 July 2020 noting the lack of reconciliation and confirming the decision of 11 October 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision of the EIB dated 30 July 2020 noting the lack of reconciliation and confirming the decision of 11 October 2018;

| — | provide compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

provide compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. In the alternative, the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of the administrative provisions relating to family allowances, on the ground that they are contrary to the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. In the alternative, the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of the administrative provisions relating to family allowances, on the ground that they are contrary to the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom ECSC) No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and the procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities (OJ L 56, p. 8) and, second, a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom ECSC) No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and the procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities (OJ L 56, p. 8) and, second, a manifest error of assessment.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018, L 295, p. 39), infringement of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty of care. In support of that plea, the applicant argues that his personal data were accessed illegally, that the defendant refused to open an investigation and that the latter unduly supported his ex-spouse. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018, L 295, p. 39), infringement of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty of care. In support of that plea, the applicant argues that his personal data were accessed illegally, that the defendant refused to open an investigation and that the latter unduly supported his ex-spouse.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of sound administration and of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of sound administration and of the duty of care.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/29

---

Action brought on 21 September 2020 — YP v Commission

(Case T-581/20)

(2020/C 371/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YP (represented by: J. Van Rossum and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 14 November 2019 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 14 in the 2019 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 14 November 2019 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 14 in the 2019 promotion procedure;

| — | 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant submits that the Commission did not take into account her extensive language combinations in its consideration of the comparative merits. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant submits that the Commission did not take into account her extensive language combinations in its consideration of the comparative merits.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicant takes issue with the contested decision for having automatically excluded her from the officials eligible for promotion by applying an administrative practice that involves the automatic removal from the promotion list of the names of all staff members who are the subject of an investigation or who have received an administrative or disciplinary penalty. According to the applicant, such a practice breaches the principle of the presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicant takes issue with the contested decision for having automatically excluded her from the officials eligible for promotion by applying an administrative practice that involves the automatic removal from the promotion list of the names of all staff members who are the subject of an investigation or who have received an administrative or disciplinary penalty. According to the applicant, such a practice breaches the principle of the presumption of innocence.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the settlement agreement of 18 September 2019 entered into in Cases T-562/18, YP v Commission and T-563/18, YP v Commission. The applicant takes the view that that agreement binds the parties and that they are obliged to comply with all of its terms. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the settlement agreement of 18 September 2019 entered into in Cases T-562/18, YP v Commission and T-563/18, YP v Commission. The applicant takes the view that that agreement binds the parties and that they are obliged to comply with all of its terms.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that, under that article, a single case of misconduct cannot give rise to more than one disciplinary penalty. While being automatically excluded from the list of officials proposed for promotion and the list of promoted officials does not constitute a disciplinary penalty per se, it is nevertheless a direct consequence of initiating an investigation, disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary sanction. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that, under that article, a single case of misconduct cannot give rise to more than one disciplinary penalty. While being automatically excluded from the list of officials proposed for promotion and the list of promoted officials does not constitute a disciplinary penalty per se, it is nevertheless a direct consequence of initiating an investigation, disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary sanction.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/30

---

Order of the General Court of 24 July 2020 — VG v Commission

(Case T-299/19) (1)

(2020/C 371/34)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/30

---

Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-8/20) (1)

(2020/C 371/35)

Language of the case: Czech

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

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/30

---

Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-76/20) (1)

(2020/C 371/36)

Language of the case: Czech

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

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/30

---

Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Tempora v Parliament

(Case T-450/20) (1)

(2020/C 371/37)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---