# Official Journal C 230/13 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 230 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6313 July 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 230

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6313 July 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 230/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2020/C 230/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 230/02 | Joined Cases C-13/18 and C-126/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Sole-Mizo Zrt. (C-13/18), Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. (C-126/18) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input tax — Refund of excess VAT — Late refund — Calculation of interest — Rules for granting interest due because of the unavailability of an excess of deductible VAT withheld in breach of EU law and interest due because of the tax administration’s delay in paying a sum due — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence) | 2 |
| 2020/C 230/03 | Case C-401/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Herst s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(b) — Intra-Community acquisition of goods — Article 20 — Acquisition of the right to dispose of goods as owner — Chain of transactions for the purchase and resale of goods with a single intra-Community transport — Right to take decisions capable of affecting the legal situation of property — Transaction to which the transport should be ascribed — Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement — Temporal effect of judgments by way of interpretation) | 3 |
| 2020/C 230/04 | Case C-480/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesa — Latvia) — PrivatBank AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Payment services in the internal market — Directive 2007/64/EC — Material and personal scope — Payment services provided in a currency other than the euro or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area — Payment services provided by a credit institution — Non-execution or defective execution of a payment order — Person liable — Prudential supervision procedure — Complaint procedures — Out-of-court-redress — Competent authorities) | 4 |
| 2020/C 230/05 | Case C-507/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — NH v Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI — Rete Lenford (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 3(1)(a), Article 8(1) and Article 9(2) — Prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation — Conditions for access to employment or to occupation — Concept — Public statements ruling out recruitment of homosexual persons — Article 11(1), Article 15(1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Defence of rights — Sanctions — Legal entity representing a collective interest — Standing to bring proceedings without acting in the name of a specific complainant or in the absence of an injured party — Right to damages) | 5 |
| 2020/C 230/06 | Case C-640/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Mons — Belgium) — Wagram Invest SA v Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Acquisition of a financial fixed asset by a public limited company — Entry as a charge, in the profit and loss account, of a discount relating to a non-interest-bearing debt due after one year and entry of the purchase price of the asset as an asset in the balance sheet after deduction of the discount) | 6 |
| 2020/C 230/07 | Case C-670/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — CO v Comune di Gesturi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — Public call for expressions of interest — Conditions of participation — Exclusion of retired public-sector and private-sector employees) | 6 |
| 2020/C 230/08 | Case C-710/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — WN v Land Niedersachsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45(1) TFEU — Remuneration — Step allocation in a remuneration system — Remuneration system linking entitlement to a higher remuneration rate to length of service with the same employer — Limitation of the account to be taken of previous periods of relevant activity with an employer in a Member State other than the Member State of origin) | 7 |
| 2020/C 230/09 | Case C-736/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — Gugler France v Alexander Gugler, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element GUGLER — Application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Gugler France SA — Economic link between the party seeking a declaration of invalidity and the proprietor of the contested mark — No likelihood of confusion) | 8 |
| 2020/C 230/10 | Case C-830/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Germany) — Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße v PF and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Children of frontier workers — Social advantages — System for reimbursement of school transport costs — Requirement of residence in a Land — Exclusion of children attending school in that Land and residing in a Member State other than that of the school attended — Exclusion of nationals residing in other Länder) | 8 |
| 2020/C 230/11 | Case C-20/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Direct life assurance — Directive 2002/83/EC — Articles 35 and 36 — Right of cancellation and cancellation period — Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation — Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation — Lapse of the right of cancellation — Relevance of the policy holder’s status as consumer) | 9 |
| 2020/C 230/12 | Case C-28/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ryanair Ltd, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Ryanair Ltd, Ryanair DAC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Air services — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Article 23(1) — Indication of the final price to be paid — Online passenger check-in fees — VAT — Administrative fees for purchases made by means of a credit card other than that approved by the air carrier — Unavoidable and foreseeable elements of the final price to be paid — Optional price supplements — Concept) | 10 |
| 2020/C 230/13 | Joined Cases C-101/19 and C-102/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (References for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Articles 62 and 69 — Particulars on the labelling and package leaflet of homeopathic medicinal products — Exhaustive list of the particulars or possibility to add information that is useful to the patient and is compatible with the summary of product characteristics — Dosage schedules for homeopathic medicinal products) | 10 |
| 2020/C 230/14 | Case C-161/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Authorisations for spring hunting of male specimens of the bird species Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) in Lower Austria (Austria) — Article 7(4) and Article 9(1)(c) — No other satisfactory solution — Concept of small numbers) | 11 |
| 2020/C 230/15 | Case C-217/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Authorisations for spring hunting of male specimens of the common eider bird species (Somateria mollissima) in the province of Åland (Finland) — Article 7(4) and Article 9(1)(c) — Concepts of judicious use and small numbers) | 12 |
| 2020/C 230/16 | Case C-237/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Refusal or invalidation of registration — Three-dimensional mark — Article 3(1)(e)(ii) and (iii) — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Sign consisting of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods — Consideration of the perception of the relevant public) | 12 |
| 2020/C 230/17 | Case C-384/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Flood risk assessment and management — Directive 2007/60/EC — Article 7(1) and (5), Article 10(1) and (2) and Article 15(1) — Flood risk management plan — Establishment — Public consultation and information — Making available to the European Commission — River basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura, ES 123 Lanzarote, ES 124 Tenerife, ES 125 La Palma, ES 126 La Gomera and ES 127 El Hierro (Spain)) | 13 |
| 2020/C 230/18 | Case C-406/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain — Withdrawal of recognition of producer organisations — Non-recovery of aid paid — Burden of proof — Flat-rate financial correction) | 14 |
| 2020/C 230/19 | Case C-757/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 15 October 2019 — ES v Wallonische Region | 14 |
| 2020/C 230/20 | Case C-146/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2020 — AD, BE, CF v Corendon Airlines | 15 |
| 2020/C 230/21 | Case C-155/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2020 — RT, SV, BC v Volkswagen Bank GmbH, Skoda Bank, a branch of Volkswagen Bank GmbH | 15 |
| 2020/C 230/22 | Case C-164/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 20 April 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG | 17 |
| 2020/C 230/23 | Case C-166/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 22 April 2020 — BB v Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija | 18 |
| 2020/C 230/24 | Case C-195/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — XC | 18 |
| 2020/C 230/25 | Case C-203/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava III (Slovakia) lodged on 11 May 2020 — criminal proceedings against AB and Others, other parties HI and Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave | 19 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 230/26 | Case T-399/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Wireless telecommunications — Retail market for mobile telecommunication services — Market for wholesale access and call origination on public mobile networks — Acquisition of Telefónica Europe by Hutchison — Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market — Oligopolistic market — Significant impediment to effective competition — Non-coordinated effects — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — Market shares — Effects of the merger on prices — Quantitative analysis of upward pricing pressure — Close competitors — Important competitive constraint — Important competitive force — Network-sharing agreements — Level of concentration — Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index — Error of law — Error of assessment) | 21 |
| 2020/C 230/27 | Case T-483/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Cerafogli v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Complaint of discrimination and psychological harassment — Internal administrative inquiry — Rejection of the complaint — Right to an effective judicial remedy — Right to be heard — Request for access to the minutes of the hearings of witnesses — Destruction of the inquiry file — Probative character of the evidence submitted to the Court — Incomplete examination — Psychological harassment — Error of law — Duty to provide assistance — Responsibility — Causal link — Non-material damage) | 22 |
| 2020/C 230/28 | Case T-649/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — ViaSat v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document on measures required to ensure compliance by authorised operators of mobile satellite systems with the common conditions referred to in Decision No 626/2008/EC — Implied and express refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Overriding public interest — Partial refusal of access) | 23 |
| 2020/C 230/29 | Case T-518/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — YG v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 — Comparison of the merits — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons) | 24 |
| 2020/C 230/30 | Case T-574/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission (Plant-protection products — Active substance oxasulfuron — Non-renewal of approval for placing on the market — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Manifest error of assessment — Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and point 2.2 of Annex II to Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle) | 24 |
| 2020/C 230/31 | Case T-615/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line — Earlier EU figurative mark representing the capital letter D and earlier international figurative mark (D) representing an angled line — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 25 |
| 2020/C 230/32 | Case T-677/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Intercontinental Great Brands (gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH — Earlier EU figurative mark OREO — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 26 |
| 2020/C 230/33 | Case T-681/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Korporaciya Masternet v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark STAYER — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Categorisation of the goods in connection with which genuine use has been proved) | 26 |
| 2020/C 230/34 | Case T-696/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Consejo Regulador Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel v EUIPO — Airesano Foods (AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel — Earlier EU figurative mark JAMON DE TERUEL CONSEJO REGULADOR DE LA DENOMINACION DE ORIGEN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 27 |
| 2020/C 230/35 | Case T-701/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 –Campbell v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents in relation to Ireland’s compliance or non-compliance with its obligations under Council Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA — Refusal to grant access — Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of confidentiality) | 28 |
| 2020/C 230/36 | Case T-724/18 and T-184/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Earlier EU word mark AUREA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Correction of the Board of Appeal’s decision — Article 102 of Regulation 2017/1001) | 29 |
| 2020/C 230/37 | Case T-739/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Darment v Commission (Environment — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Decision finding that an undertaking exceeded the quota allocated to it and imposing on it a penalty — Correction of the electronic registry for quotas — Transfer of quota — Authorisation to use a quota — Principle of good administration) | 30 |
| 2020/C 230/38 | Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International ([We IntelliGence the World and Others]) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU figurative marks We IntelliGence the World, currencymachineassistant, robodealer, currencyassistant, tradingcurrencyassistant, CKPL, moneypersonalassistant, moneyassistant, currencypersonalassistant, CNTX Trading, AIdealer and CNTX — Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing two intertwining circles or two overlapping circles — Suspension of proceedings — Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) | 30 |
| 2020/C 230/39 | Case T-213/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — AW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Article 16 — Statement of occupational disease — Article 22 — Medical Committee — Refusal to recognise the occupational nature of a disease — Irregularity of the opinion of the Medical Committee) | 31 |
| 2020/C 230/40 | Case T-333/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES — Earlier EU word mark GNC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 32 |
| 2020/C 230/41 | Case T-341/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark TASER — Earlier EU word marks TASER — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Detriment to reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 33 |
| 2020/C 230/42 | Case T-342/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark TASER — Earlier EU word marks TASER — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 34 |
| 2020/C 230/43 | Case T-506/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Workplace Group v EUIPO — Technopolis Holding (UMA WORKSPACE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark UMA WORKSPACE — Earlier EU figurative mark and earlier UK figurative and word marks WORKSPACE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 34 |
| 2020/C 230/44 | Case T-564/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 —Lozano Arana and Others v EUIPO — Coltejer (LIBERTADOR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark LIBERTADOR — Genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Due notification — Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (now Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Failure to produce proof of genuine use of the mark within the time limit prescribed — Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2017/1430 (now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625) | 35 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 230/02

Joined Cases C-13/18 and C-126/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Sole-Mizo Zrt. (C-13/18), Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. (C-126/18) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input tax — Refund of excess VAT — Late refund — Calculation of interest — Rules for granting interest due because of the unavailability of an excess of deductible VAT withheld in breach of EU law and interest due because of the tax administration’s delay in paying a sum due — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

2

2020/C 230/03

Case C-401/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Herst s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(b) — Intra-Community acquisition of goods — Article 20 — Acquisition of the right to dispose of goods as owner — Chain of transactions for the purchase and resale of goods with a single intra-Community transport — Right to take decisions capable of affecting the legal situation of property — Transaction to which the transport should be ascribed — Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement — Temporal effect of judgments by way of interpretation)

3

2020/C 230/04

Case C-480/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesa — Latvia) — PrivatBank AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Payment services in the internal market — Directive 2007/64/EC — Material and personal scope — Payment services provided in a currency other than the euro or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area — Payment services provided by a credit institution — Non-execution or defective execution of a payment order — Person liable — Prudential supervision procedure — Complaint procedures — Out-of-court-redress — Competent authorities)

4

2020/C 230/05

Case C-507/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — NH v Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI — Rete Lenford (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 3(1)(a), Article 8(1) and Article 9(2) — Prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation — Conditions for access to employment or to occupation — Concept — Public statements ruling out recruitment of homosexual persons — Article 11(1), Article 15(1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Defence of rights — Sanctions — Legal entity representing a collective interest — Standing to bring proceedings without acting in the name of a specific complainant or in the absence of an injured party — Right to damages)

5

2020/C 230/06

Case C-640/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Mons — Belgium) — Wagram Invest SA v Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Acquisition of a financial fixed asset by a public limited company — Entry as a charge, in the profit and loss account, of a discount relating to a non-interest-bearing debt due after one year and entry of the purchase price of the asset as an asset in the balance sheet after deduction of the discount)

6

2020/C 230/07

Case C-670/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — CO v Comune di Gesturi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — Public call for expressions of interest — Conditions of participation — Exclusion of retired public-sector and private-sector employees)

6

2020/C 230/08

Case C-710/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — WN v Land Niedersachsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45(1) TFEU — Remuneration — Step allocation in a remuneration system — Remuneration system linking entitlement to a higher remuneration rate to length of service with the same employer — Limitation of the account to be taken of previous periods of relevant activity with an employer in a Member State other than the Member State of origin)

7

2020/C 230/09

Case C-736/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — Gugler France v Alexander Gugler, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element GUGLER — Application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Gugler France SA — Economic link between the party seeking a declaration of invalidity and the proprietor of the contested mark — No likelihood of confusion)

8

2020/C 230/10

Case C-830/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Germany) — Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße v PF and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Children of frontier workers — Social advantages — System for reimbursement of school transport costs — Requirement of residence in a Land — Exclusion of children attending school in that Land and residing in a Member State other than that of the school attended — Exclusion of nationals residing in other Länder)

8

2020/C 230/11

Case C-20/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Direct life assurance — Directive 2002/83/EC — Articles 35 and 36 — Right of cancellation and cancellation period — Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation — Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation — Lapse of the right of cancellation — Relevance of the policy holder’s status as consumer)

9

2020/C 230/12

Case C-28/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ryanair Ltd, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Ryanair Ltd, Ryanair DAC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Air services — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Article 23(1) — Indication of the final price to be paid — Online passenger check-in fees — VAT — Administrative fees for purchases made by means of a credit card other than that approved by the air carrier — Unavoidable and foreseeable elements of the final price to be paid — Optional price supplements — Concept)

10

2020/C 230/13

Joined Cases C-101/19 and C-102/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (References for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Articles 62 and 69 — Particulars on the labelling and package leaflet of homeopathic medicinal products — Exhaustive list of the particulars or possibility to add information that is useful to the patient and is compatible with the summary of product characteristics — Dosage schedules for homeopathic medicinal products)

10

2020/C 230/14

Case C-161/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Authorisations for spring hunting of male specimens of the bird species Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) in Lower Austria (Austria) — Article 7(4) and Article 9(1)(c) — No other satisfactory solution — Concept of small numbers)

11

2020/C 230/15

Case C-217/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Authorisations for spring hunting of male specimens of the common eider bird species (Somateria mollissima) in the province of Åland (Finland) — Article 7(4) and Article 9(1)(c) — Concepts of judicious use and small numbers)

12

2020/C 230/16

Case C-237/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Refusal or invalidation of registration — Three-dimensional mark — Article 3(1)(e)(ii) and (iii) — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Sign consisting of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods — Consideration of the perception of the relevant public)

12

2020/C 230/17

Case C-384/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Flood risk assessment and management — Directive 2007/60/EC — Article 7(1) and (5), Article 10(1) and (2) and Article 15(1) — Flood risk management plan — Establishment — Public consultation and information — Making available to the European Commission — River basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura, ES 123 Lanzarote, ES 124 Tenerife, ES 125 La Palma, ES 126 La Gomera and ES 127 El Hierro (Spain))

13

2020/C 230/18

Case C-406/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain — Withdrawal of recognition of producer organisations — Non-recovery of aid paid — Burden of proof — Flat-rate financial correction)

14

2020/C 230/19

Case C-757/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 15 October 2019 — ES v Wallonische Region

14

2020/C 230/20

Case C-146/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2020 — AD, BE, CF v Corendon Airlines

15

2020/C 230/21

Case C-155/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2020 — RT, SV, BC v Volkswagen Bank GmbH, Skoda Bank, a branch of Volkswagen Bank GmbH

15

2020/C 230/22

Case C-164/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 20 April 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG

17

2020/C 230/23

Case C-166/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 22 April 2020 — BB v Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija

18

2020/C 230/24

Case C-195/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — XC

18

2020/C 230/25

Case C-203/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava III (Slovakia) lodged on 11 May 2020 — criminal proceedings against AB and Others, other parties HI and Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave

19

General Court

2020/C 230/26

Case T-399/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Wireless telecommunications — Retail market for mobile telecommunication services — Market for wholesale access and call origination on public mobile networks — Acquisition of Telefónica Europe by Hutchison — Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market — Oligopolistic market — Significant impediment to effective competition — Non-coordinated effects — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — Market shares — Effects of the merger on prices — Quantitative analysis of upward pricing pressure — Close competitors — Important competitive constraint — Important competitive force — Network-sharing agreements — Level of concentration — Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index — Error of law — Error of assessment)

21

2020/C 230/27

Case T-483/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Cerafogli v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Complaint of discrimination and psychological harassment — Internal administrative inquiry — Rejection of the complaint — Right to an effective judicial remedy — Right to be heard — Request for access to the minutes of the hearings of witnesses — Destruction of the inquiry file — Probative character of the evidence submitted to the Court — Incomplete examination — Psychological harassment — Error of law — Duty to provide assistance — Responsibility — Causal link — Non-material damage)

22

2020/C 230/28

Case T-649/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — ViaSat v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document on measures required to ensure compliance by authorised operators of mobile satellite systems with the common conditions referred to in Decision No 626/2008/EC — Implied and express refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Overriding public interest — Partial refusal of access)

23

2020/C 230/29

Case T-518/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — YG v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 — Comparison of the merits — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons)

24

2020/C 230/30

Case T-574/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission (Plant-protection products — Active substance oxasulfuron — Non-renewal of approval for placing on the market — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Manifest error of assessment — Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and point 2.2 of Annex II to Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle)

24

2020/C 230/31

Case T-615/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line — Earlier EU figurative mark representing the capital letter D and earlier international figurative mark (D) representing an angled line — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

25

2020/C 230/32

Case T-677/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Intercontinental Great Brands (gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH — Earlier EU figurative mark OREO — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

26

2020/C 230/33

Case T-681/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Korporaciya Masternet v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark STAYER — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Categorisation of the goods in connection with which genuine use has been proved)

26

2020/C 230/34

Case T-696/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Consejo Regulador Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel v EUIPO — Airesano Foods (AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel — Earlier EU figurative mark JAMON DE TERUEL CONSEJO REGULADOR DE LA DENOMINACION DE ORIGEN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

27

2020/C 230/35

Case T-701/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 –Campbell v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents in relation to Ireland’s compliance or non-compliance with its obligations under Council Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA — Refusal to grant access — Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of confidentiality)

28

2020/C 230/36

Case T-724/18 and T-184/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Earlier EU word mark AUREA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Correction of the Board of Appeal’s decision — Article 102 of Regulation 2017/1001)

29

2020/C 230/37

Case T-739/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Darment v Commission (Environment — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Decision finding that an undertaking exceeded the quota allocated to it and imposing on it a penalty — Correction of the electronic registry for quotas — Transfer of quota — Authorisation to use a quota — Principle of good administration)

30

2020/C 230/38

Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International ([We IntelliGence the World and Others]) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU figurative marks We IntelliGence the World, currencymachineassistant, robodealer, currencyassistant, tradingcurrencyassistant, CKPL, moneypersonalassistant, moneyassistant, currencypersonalassistant, CNTX Trading, AIdealer and CNTX — Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing two intertwining circles or two overlapping circles — Suspension of proceedings — Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

30

2020/C 230/39

Case T-213/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — AW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Article 16 — Statement of occupational disease — Article 22 — Medical Committee — Refusal to recognise the occupational nature of a disease — Irregularity of the opinion of the Medical Committee)

31

2020/C 230/40

Case T-333/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES — Earlier EU word mark GNC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

32

2020/C 230/41

Case T-341/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark TASER — Earlier EU word marks TASER — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Detriment to reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)

33

2020/C 230/42

Case T-342/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark TASER — Earlier EU word marks TASER — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

34

2020/C 230/43

Case T-506/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Workplace Group v EUIPO — Technopolis Holding (UMA WORKSPACE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark UMA WORKSPACE — Earlier EU figurative mark and earlier UK figurative and word marks WORKSPACE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

34

2020/C 230/44

Case T-564/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 —Lozano Arana and Others v EUIPO — Coltejer (LIBERTADOR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark LIBERTADOR — Genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Due notification — Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (now Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Failure to produce proof of genuine use of the mark within the time limit prescribed — Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2017/1430 (now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625)

35

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

---

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

(2020/C 230/01)

Last publication

OJ C 222, 6.7.2020

Past publications

OJ C 215, 29.6.2020

OJ C 209, 22.6.2020

OJ C 201, 15.6.2020

OJ C 191, 8.6.2020

OJ C 175, 25.5.2020

OJ C 162, 11.5.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Sole-Mizo Zrt. (C-13/18), Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. (C-126/18) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Joined Cases C-13/18 and C-126/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input tax - Refund of excess VAT - Late refund - Calculation of interest - Rules for granting interest due because of the unavailability of an excess of deductible VAT withheld in breach of EU law and interest due because of the tax administration’s delay in paying a sum due - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

(2020/C 230/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring courts

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sole-Mizo Zrt. (C-13/18), Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. (C-126/18)

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | EU law and, in particular, the principles of fiscal effectiveness and fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State of calculating interest on an excess of deductible value added tax (VAT) withheld by that Member State beyond a reasonable period in breach of EU law by applying a rate which corresponds to the basic rate of the national central bank, where, first, that rate is lower than that which a taxable person who is not a credit institution would have to pay to borrow a sum equal to that amount, and, second, interest on the excess VAT concerned accrues during a given reporting period, without application of interest to compensate the taxable person for the monetary depreciation caused by the passage of time following that reporting period until actual payment of that interest. |
| --- | --- |

1.

EU law and, in particular, the principles of fiscal effectiveness and fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State of calculating interest on an excess of deductible value added tax (VAT) withheld by that Member State beyond a reasonable period in breach of EU law by applying a rate which corresponds to the basic rate of the national central bank, where, first, that rate is lower than that which a taxable person who is not a credit institution would have to pay to borrow a sum equal to that amount, and, second, interest on the excess VAT concerned accrues during a given reporting period, without application of interest to compensate the taxable person for the monetary depreciation caused by the passage of time following that reporting period until actual payment of that interest.

| 2. | EU law and, in particular, the principles of effectiveness and equivalence must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of a Member State which subjects to a limitation period of five years claims for payment of interest on excess deductible value added tax withheld on account of the application of a national provision which was found to be contrary to EU law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law and, in particular, the principles of effectiveness and equivalence must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of a Member State which subjects to a limitation period of five years claims for payment of interest on excess deductible value added tax withheld on account of the application of a national provision which was found to be contrary to EU law.

| 3. | EU law and, in particular, the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of a Member State which, first, makes the payment of default interest due by reason of the tax administration’s failure to pay it within the prescribed period conditional upon the payment of a claim due in respect of the refund of an excess of value added tax withheld in breach of EU law to the lodging of a specific application, while in other cases such interest is granted automatically, and, second, applies such interest from the expiry of the 30 or 45 day time limit prescribed for the administration to process such an application and not from the date on which the excess was created. |
| --- | --- |

3.

EU law and, in particular, the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of a Member State which, first, makes the payment of default interest due by reason of the tax administration’s failure to pay it within the prescribed period conditional upon the payment of a claim due in respect of the refund of an excess of value added tax withheld in breach of EU law to the lodging of a specific application, while in other cases such interest is granted automatically, and, second, applies such interest from the expiry of the 30 or 45 day time limit prescribed for the administration to process such an application and not from the date on which the excess was created.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Herst s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-401/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(b) - Intra-Community acquisition of goods - Article 20 - Acquisition of the right to dispose of goods as owner - Chain of transactions for the purchase and resale of goods with a single intra-Community transport - Right to take decisions capable of affecting the legal situation of property - Transaction to which the transport should be ascribed - Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement - Temporal effect of judgments by way of interpretation)

(2020/C 230/03)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Herst s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 20 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person which carries out a single intra-Community transport of goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, with the intention of purchasing those goods for the purposes of its economic activity once they have been released for free circulation in the Member State of destination, acquires the right to dispose of the goods as owner, within the meaning of that provision, provided that it has the right to take decisions which are capable of affecting the legal situation of the goods, including, inter alia, the decision to sell them;
  The fact that that taxable person had, at the outset, the intention to purchase those goods for the purposes of its economic activity once they have been released for free circulation in the Member State of destination is a circumstance which must be taken into account by the national court in its overall assessment of all of the particular circumstances of the case before it in order to determine to which of the successive acquisitions the intra-Community transport is to be ascribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 20 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person which carries out a single intra-Community transport of goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, with the intention of purchasing those goods for the purposes of its economic activity once they have been released for free circulation in the Member State of destination, acquires the right to dispose of the goods as owner, within the meaning of that provision, provided that it has the right to take decisions which are capable of affecting the legal situation of the goods, including, inter alia, the decision to sell them;

The fact that that taxable person had, at the outset, the intention to purchase those goods for the purposes of its economic activity once they have been released for free circulation in the Member State of destination is a circumstance which must be taken into account by the national court in its overall assessment of all of the particular circumstances of the case before it in order to determine to which of the successive acquisitions the intra-Community transport is to be ascribed.

| 2. | EU law precludes a national court that is confronted with a provision of national tax law, which has transposed a provision of Directive 2006/112 and is open to several interpretations, from adopting the interpretation that is most favourable to the taxable person by relying on the constitutional principle of in dubio mitius under national law, even after the Court has held that such an interpretation is incompatible with EU law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law precludes a national court that is confronted with a provision of national tax law, which has transposed a provision of Directive 2006/112 and is open to several interpretations, from adopting the interpretation that is most favourable to the taxable person by relying on the constitutional principle of in dubio mitius under national law, even after the Court has held that such an interpretation is incompatible with EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesa — Latvia) — ‘PrivatBank’ AS

(Case C-480/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services in the internal market - Directive 2007/64/EC - Material and personal scope - Payment services provided in a currency other than the euro or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area - Payment services provided by a credit institution - Non-execution or defective execution of a payment order - Person liable - Prudential supervision procedure - Complaint procedures - Out-of-court-redress - Competent authorities)

(2020/C 230/04)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘PrivatBank’ AS

Intervener: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(2) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the authority referred to in Article 82 of that directive has the power to examine complaints and impose penalties in the case of payment services provided in the currency of a third State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(2) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the authority referred to in Article 82 of that directive has the power to examine complaints and impose penalties in the case of payment services provided in the currency of a third State;

| 2. | Articles 20 and 21 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, are not applicable ratione personae to credit institutions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 20 and 21 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, are not applicable ratione personae to credit institutions;

| 3. | Articles 80 to 82 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, must be interpreted as not conferring power on the competent authority, for the purposes of those provisions, to resolve, by applying the criteria established in Article 75 of that directive, disputes between users and providers of payment services arising from non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction, where that authority exercises its powers to assess complaints lodged by payment services users and to impose penalties on payment service providers in the event of infringement of the applicable provisions. Such disputes must be resolved through the out-of-court redress procedures referred to in Article 83 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, without prejudice to the right to bring proceedings before a court in accordance with national procedural law. If the national legislature opted to concentrate the powers conferred in Articles 80 to 82 and those conferred in Article 83 of the directive in the hands of the same authority, that authority must exercise each of those powers independently, applying only the relevant respective procedures; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 80 to 82 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, must be interpreted as not conferring power on the competent authority, for the purposes of those provisions, to resolve, by applying the criteria established in Article 75 of that directive, disputes between users and providers of payment services arising from non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction, where that authority exercises its powers to assess complaints lodged by payment services users and to impose penalties on payment service providers in the event of infringement of the applicable provisions. Such disputes must be resolved through the out-of-court redress procedures referred to in Article 83 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, without prejudice to the right to bring proceedings before a court in accordance with national procedural law. If the national legislature opted to concentrate the powers conferred in Articles 80 to 82 and those conferred in Article 83 of the directive in the hands of the same authority, that authority must exercise each of those powers independently, applying only the relevant respective procedures;

| 4. | In accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, the national legislature may give the competent authority, in the complaints and penalty procedures referred to in Articles 80 to 82 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, the power to take into account the existence and contents of an arbitration ruling settling a dispute between a user and provider of payment services concerned by those procedures, provided that the probative value given to that ruling in those procedures is not liable to undermine the purpose or specific objectives of the procedures, the rights of defence of the persons concerned or the independent exercise of the powers and competencies conferred on that authority, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, the national legislature may give the competent authority, in the complaints and penalty procedures referred to in Articles 80 to 82 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, the power to take into account the existence and contents of an arbitration ruling settling a dispute between a user and provider of payment services concerned by those procedures, provided that the probative value given to that ruling in those procedures is not liable to undermine the purpose or specific objectives of the procedures, the rights of defence of the persons concerned or the independent exercise of the powers and competencies conferred on that authority, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — NH v Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI — Rete Lenford

(Case C-507/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 3(1)(a), Article 8(1) and Article 9(2) - Prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation - Conditions for access to employment or to occupation - Concept - Public statements ruling out recruitment of homosexual persons - Article 11(1), Article 15(1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Defence of rights - Sanctions - Legal entity representing a collective interest - Standing to bring proceedings without acting in the name of a specific complainant or in the absence of an injured party - Right to damages)

(2020/C 230/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: NH

Respondent: Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI — Rete Lenford

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of ‘conditions for access to employment ... or to occupation’ in Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as covering statements made by a person during an audiovisual programme according to which that person would never recruit persons of a certain sexual orientation to his or her undertaking or wish to use the services of such persons, even though no recruitment procedure had been opened, nor was planned, provided that the link between those statements and the conditions for access to employment or occupation within that undertaking is not hypothetical. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘conditions for access to employment ... or to occupation’ in Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as covering statements made by a person during an audiovisual programme according to which that person would never recruit persons of a certain sexual orientation to his or her undertaking or wish to use the services of such persons, even though no recruitment procedure had been opened, nor was planned, provided that the link between those statements and the conditions for access to employment or occupation within that undertaking is not hypothetical.

| 2. | Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which an association of lawyers whose objective, according to its statutes, is the judicial protection of persons having in particular a certain sexual orientation and the promotion of the culture and respect for the rights of that category of persons, automatically, on account of that objective and irrespective of whether it is a for-profit association, has standing to bring legal proceedings for the enforcement of obligations under that directive and, where appropriate, to obtain damages, in circumstances that are capable of constituting discrimination, within the meaning of that directive, against that category of persons and it is not possible to identify an injured party. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which an association of lawyers whose objective, according to its statutes, is the judicial protection of persons having in particular a certain sexual orientation and the promotion of the culture and respect for the rights of that category of persons, automatically, on account of that objective and irrespective of whether it is a for-profit association, has standing to bring legal proceedings for the enforcement of obligations under that directive and, where appropriate, to obtain damages, in circumstances that are capable of constituting discrimination, within the meaning of that directive, against that category of persons and it is not possible to identify an injured party.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Mons — Belgium) — Wagram Invest SA v Belgian State

(Case C-640/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 78/660/EEC - Annual accounts of certain types of companies - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Acquisition of a financial fixed asset by a public limited company - Entry as a charge, in the profit and loss account, of a discount relating to a non-interest-bearing debt due after one year and entry of the purchase price of the asset as an asset in the balance sheet after deduction of the discount)

(2020/C 230/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wagram Invest SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Operative part of the judgment

In the case of the acquisition by a public limited company of a financial fixed asset, for which payment of the price is to be by long-term, interest-free instalments, under conditions similar to those of a loan, the principle of a true and fair view laid down in Article 2(3) of Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] concerning the annual accounts of certain types of companies, is to be interpreted as not precluding the use of an accounting method which provides for the entry as a charge in the profit and loss account, at the market rate, of a discount relating to a non-interest-bearing debt becoming due after one year relating to that acquisition, and the entry of the purchase price of the fixed asset as an asset in the balance sheet after deduction of that discount.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — CO v Comune di Gesturi

(Case C-670/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age - Public call for expressions of interest - Conditions of participation - Exclusion of retired public-sector and private-sector employees)

(2020/C 230/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CO

Defendant: Comune di Gesturi

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in particular Article 2(2), Article 3(1) and Article 6(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation prohibiting public administrative authorities from awarding analysis and consultancy roles to retired persons in so far as, first, that legislation pursues a legitimate employment policy and labour market objective and, second, the means deployed to achieve that objective are appropriate and necessary. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is in fact the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — WN v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-710/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45(1) TFEU - Remuneration - Step allocation in a remuneration system - Remuneration system linking entitlement to a higher remuneration rate to length of service with the same employer - Limitation of the account to be taken of previous periods of relevant activity with an employer in a Member State other than the Member State of origin)

(2020/C 230/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WN

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that, for the purpose of determining the remuneration rate of a person working as a school teacher with a local authority, takes into account that person’s previous periods of activity with an employer, other than that local authority, situated in other Member State, only up to a maximum of three years in total, when that activity is equivalent to that which that person is to perform in the context of his or her school teaching duties.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — Gugler France v Alexander Gugler, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-736/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element GUGLER - Application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Gugler France SA - Economic link between the party seeking a declaration of invalidity and the proprietor of the contested mark - No likelihood of confusion)

(2020/C 230/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gugler France (represented by: S. Guerlain, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Alexander Gugler (represented by: M.-C. Simon, Rechtsanwältin), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Gugler France SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Alexander Gugler and by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in relation to the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gugler France SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Alexander Gugler and by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in relation to the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Germany) — Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße v PF and Others

(Case C-830/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Children of frontier workers - Social advantages - System for reimbursement of school transport costs - Requirement of residence in a Land - Exclusion of children attending school in that Land and residing in a Member State other than that of the school attended - Exclusion of nationals residing in other Länder)

(2020/C 230/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße

Defendant: PF and Others

Other party to the proceedings: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which makes the payment of school transport costs by a Land subject to a requirement of residence in the territory of that Land constitutes indirect discrimination, in that it is intrinsically liable to affect frontier workers more than national workers; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which makes the payment of school transport costs by a Land subject to a requirement of residence in the territory of that Land constitutes indirect discrimination, in that it is intrinsically liable to affect frontier workers more than national workers;

| 2. | Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that practical difficulties linked to the effective organisation of school transport within a Land do not constitute an overriding reason in the public interest that is capable of justifying a national measure categorised as indirect discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that practical difficulties linked to the effective organisation of school transport within a Land do not constitute an overriding reason in the public interest that is capable of justifying a national measure categorised as indirect discrimination.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG

(Case C-20/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Direct life assurance - Directive 2002/83/EC - Articles 35 and 36 - Right of cancellation and cancellation period - Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation - Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation - Lapse of the right of cancellation - Relevance of the policy holder’s status as ‘consumer’)

(2020/C 230/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: kunsthaus muerz gmbh

Defendant: Zürich Versicherungs AG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 35 and 36 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance must be interpreted as meaning that they are also applicable to a policy holder who does not have the status of consumer and that that they do not preclude national legislation under which the period for exercising the right to cancel the effects of a life assurance contract starts to run from the date on which that contract was concluded, even though the information concerning the detailed rules for exercising that right of cancellation provided by the insurance company to that policy holder indicates formal requirements which are in fact not required by the national law applicable to that contract, provided that such information does not deprive that policy holder of the option of exercising that right, in essence under the same conditions as those which would have prevailed if the information had been correct. It is for the referring court to assess, on the basis of an overall assessment taking into account, inter alia, the national legislative context and the facts in the main proceedings, including that the policy holder may be a consumer, whether the error contained in the information provided to the policy holder deprived him of that option.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ryanair Ltd, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Ryanair Ltd, Ryanair DAC

(Case C-28/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Air services - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Article 23(1) - Indication of the final price to be paid - Online passenger check-in fees - VAT - Administrative fees for purchases made by means of a credit card other than that approved by the air carrier - Unavoidable and foreseeable elements of the final price to be paid - Optional price supplements - Concept)

(2020/C 230/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ryanair Ltd, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust

Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Ryanair Ltd, Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that passengers’ check-in fees whose payment cannot be avoided because there is no alternative method of checking-in free of charge, the value added tax (VAT) applied to fares for domestic flights, and administrative fees for purchases made by means of a credit card other than that approved by the air carrier constitute price elements that are unavoidable and foreseeable within the meaning of the second sentence of that provision. By contrast, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that passengers’ check-in fees whose payment can be avoided by using a free check-in option and the VAT applied to optional supplements relating to domestic flights constitute an optional price supplement within the meaning of the fourth sentence of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Joined Cases C-101/19 and C-102/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Articles 62 and 69 - Particulars on the labelling and package leaflet of homeopathic medicinal products - Exhaustive list of the particulars or possibility to add information that is useful to the patient and is compatible with the summary of product characteristics - Dosage schedules for homeopathic medicinal products)

(2020/C 230/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG

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

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as modified by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding the package leaflet referred to in Article 69 thereof from including information other than that listed in that provision, in particular dosage schedules for homeopathic medicinal products covered by that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-161/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Authorisations for spring hunting of male specimens of the bird species ‘Eurasian woodcock’ (Scolopax rusticola) in Lower Austria (Austria) - Article 7(4) and Article 9(1)(c) - ‘No other satisfactory solution’ - Concept of ‘small numbers’)

(2020/C 230/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: J. Schmoll, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by authorising the spring hunting of male Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) in Lower Austria (Austria), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by authorising the spring hunting of male Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) in Lower Austria (Austria), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-217/19) (1)

(Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Authorisations for spring hunting of male specimens of the ‘common eider’ bird species (Somateria mollissima) in the province of Åland (Finland) - Article 7(4) and Article 9(1)(c) - Concepts of ‘judicious use’ and ‘small numbers’)

(2020/C 230/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and E. Ljung Rasmussen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent, and J. Bouckaert, D. Gillet and S. François, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by recurrently granting authorisations for spring hunting of male common eiders (Somateria mollissima) in the province of Åland since 2011 and up to and including 2019, the Republic of Finland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) and Article 9(l)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by recurrently granting authorisations for spring hunting of male common eiders (Somateria mollissima) in the province of Åland since 2011 and up to and including 2019, the Republic of Finland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) and Article 9(l)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

(Case C-237/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Refusal or invalidation of registration - Three-dimensional mark - Article 3(1)(e)(ii) and (iii) - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Sign consisting of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods - Consideration of the perception of the relevant public)

(2020/C 230/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft.

Respondent: Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether a sign consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, assessment does not have to be limited to the graphic representation of that sign. Information other than that relating to the graphic representation alone, such as the perception of the relevant public, may be used in order to identify the essential characteristics of the sign at issue. However, while information which is not apparent from the graphic representation of the sign may be taken into consideration in order to establish whether those characteristics perform a technical function of the goods in question, such information must originate from objective and reliable sources and may not include the perception of the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether a sign consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, assessment does not have to be limited to the graphic representation of that sign. Information other than that relating to the graphic representation alone, such as the perception of the relevant public, may be used in order to identify the essential characteristics of the sign at issue. However, while information which is not apparent from the graphic representation of the sign may be taken into consideration in order to establish whether those characteristics perform a technical function of the goods in question, such information must originate from objective and reliable sources and may not include the perception of the relevant public;

| 2. | Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the perception or knowledge of the relevant public as regards the product represented graphically by a sign that consists exclusively of the shape of that product may be taken into consideration in order to identify an essential characteristic of that shape. The ground for refusal set out in that provision may be applied if it is apparent from objective and reliable evidence that the consumer’s decision to purchase the product in question is to a large extent determined by that characteristic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the perception or knowledge of the relevant public as regards the product represented graphically by a sign that consists exclusively of the shape of that product may be taken into consideration in order to identify an essential characteristic of that shape. The ground for refusal set out in that provision may be applied if it is apparent from objective and reliable evidence that the consumer’s decision to purchase the product in question is to a large extent determined by that characteristic;

| 3. | Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal of registration provided for in that provision must not be applied systematically to a sign which consists exclusively of the shape of the goods where that sign enjoys protection under the law relating to designs or where the sign consists exclusively of the shape of a decorative item. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal of registration provided for in that provision must not be applied systematically to a sign which consists exclusively of the shape of the goods where that sign enjoys protection under the law relating to designs or where the sign consists exclusively of the shape of a decorative item.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-384/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Flood risk assessment and management - Directive 2007/60/EC - Article 7(1) and (5), Article 10(1) and (2) and Article 15(1) - Flood risk management plan - Establishment - Public consultation and information - Making available to the European Commission - River basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura, ES 123 Lanzarote, ES 124 Tenerife, ES 125 La Palma, ES 126 La Gomera and ES 127 El Hierro (Spain))

(2020/C 230/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, and subsequently by M. Jauregui Gomez and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to establish, publish and notify to the European Commission the flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura, ES 123 Lanzarote, ES 124 Tenerife, ES 125 La Palma, ES 126 La Gomera and ES 127 El Hierro (Spain), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks; and by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to complete the public consultation and information on the elaboration of flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura and ES 125 La Palma, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to establish, publish and notify to the European Commission the flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura, ES 123 Lanzarote, ES 124 Tenerife, ES 125 La Palma, ES 126 La Gomera and ES 127 El Hierro (Spain), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks; and by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to complete the public consultation and information on the elaboration of flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura and ES 125 La Palma, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-406/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain - Withdrawal of recognition of producer organisations - Non-recovery of aid paid - Burden of proof - Flat-rate financial correction)

(2020/C 230/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 March 2019, Spain v Commission (T-237/17, not published, EU:T:2019:172), inasmuch as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a flat-rate correction of 10 % on certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 March 2019, Spain v Commission (T-237/17, not published, EU:T:2019:172), inasmuch as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a flat-rate correction of 10 % on certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain;

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-237/17 and the appeal proceedings, and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission relating to both proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-237/17 and the appeal proceedings, and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission relating to both proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 15 October 2019 — ES v Wallonische Region

(Case C-757/19)

(2020/C 230/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ES

Defendant: Wallonische Region

By order of 28 May 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) ruled that Article 49 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which a person residing in that Member State can rely on an exception to the obligation to register vehicles in his or her Member State of residence, as regards a vehicle that is registered in a different Member State and that has been made available to that person by a company which is resident in that Member State and of which that person is managing partner, only if the documents proving that that person has met the conditions for the exception are carried in the vehicle at all times.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2020 — AD, BE, CF v Corendon Airlines

(Case C-146/20)

(2020/C 230/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AD, BE, CF

Defendant: Corendon Airlines

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there a cancellation of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(l) and Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) where the operating air carrier brings forward a flight, which has been booked as part of a package tour, from the scheduled departure time of 10.20 (LT) to 8.40 (LT) on the same day? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there a cancellation of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(l) and Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) where the operating air carrier brings forward a flight, which has been booked as part of a package tour, from the scheduled departure time of 10.20 (LT) to 8.40 (LT) on the same day?

| 2. | Is a notification, 10 days prior to the start of the journey, about the bringing forward of a flight from 10.20 (LT) to 8.40 (LT) on the same day an offer of re-routing within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a notification, 10 days prior to the start of the journey, about the bringing forward of a flight from 10.20 (LT) to 8.40 (LT) on the same day an offer of re-routing within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2020 — RT, SV, BC v Volkswagen Bank GmbH, Skoda Bank, a branch of Volkswagen Bank GmbH

(Case C-155/20)

(2020/C 230/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: RT, SV, BC

Defendants: Volkswagen Bank GmbH, Skoda Bank — a branch of Volkswagen Bank GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 10(2)(l) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement






  (a) | must specify the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments as applicable at the time of the conclusion of the credit agreement as an absolute number or, at the very least, the current reference interest rate (in this case the base rate in accordance with Paragraph 247 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code, BGB)), from which the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments is obtained by adding a premium (in this case of five percentage points in accordance with Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB), as an absolute number? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 10(2)(l) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement

(a)

must specify the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments as applicable at the time of the conclusion of the credit agreement as an absolute number or, at the very least, the current reference interest rate (in this case the base rate in accordance with Paragraph 247 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code, BGB)), from which the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments is obtained by adding a premium (in this case of five percentage points in accordance with Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB), as an absolute number?

| (b) | must explain the specific arrangements for adjustment of the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments or, at the very least, must reference the national standards from which such arrangements follow (Paragraph 247 and Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

must explain the specific arrangements for adjustment of the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments or, at the very least, must reference the national standards from which such arrangements follow (Paragraph 247 and Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB)?

| 2. | Is Article 10(2)(r) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement must specify a particular method that the consumer can understand for calculating the compensation payable in the event of early repayment of the loan, so that the consumer can calculate at least approximately the compensation payable in the event of early termination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 10(2)(r) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement must specify a particular method that the consumer can understand for calculating the compensation payable in the event of early repayment of the loan, so that the consumer can calculate at least approximately the compensation payable in the event of early termination?

| 3. | Is Article 10(2)(s) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning






  (a) | that the credit agreement must also specify the parties’ rights of termination of the credit agreement regulated under national law, including in particular the borrower’s right of termination with good cause under Paragraph 314 of the BGB, in the case of fixed-term loan agreements? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 10(2)(s) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning

(a)

that the credit agreement must also specify the parties’ rights of termination of the credit agreement regulated under national law, including in particular the borrower’s right of termination with good cause under Paragraph 314 of the BGB, in the case of fixed-term loan agreements?

| (b) | (if Question a) above is answered in the negative) that it does not preclude a national regulation which stipulates the designation of a national special right of termination as mandatory information within the meaning of Article 10(2)(s) of Directive 2008/48/EC? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(if Question a) above is answered in the negative) that it does not preclude a national regulation which stipulates the designation of a national special right of termination as mandatory information within the meaning of Article 10(2)(s) of Directive 2008/48/EC?

| (c) | that the credit agreement must indicate the time limit for and form of the declaration of termination prescribed for the purpose of exercising the right of termination for all rights of termination of the parties to the credit agreement? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

that the credit agreement must indicate the time limit for and form of the declaration of termination prescribed for the purpose of exercising the right of termination for all rights of termination of the parties to the credit agreement?

| 4. | In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor excluded from invoking the plea of forfeiture in respect of the exercising of the right of withdrawal of the consumer in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC






  (a) | if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal in accordance with Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun? |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor excluded from invoking the plea of forfeiture in respect of the exercising of the right of withdrawal of the consumer in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC

(a)

if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal in accordance with Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun?

| (b) | (if Question a) above is answered in the negative) if the forfeiture is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(if Question a) above is answered in the negative) if the forfeiture is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge?

| 5. | In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor excluded from invoking the plea of abuse of rights in respect of the exercising of the right of withdrawal of the consumer in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC






  (a) | if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun? |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor excluded from invoking the plea of abuse of rights in respect of the exercising of the right of withdrawal of the consumer in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC

(a)

if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun?

| (b) | (if Question a) above is answered in the negative) if the abuse of rights is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(if Question a) above is answered in the negative) if the abuse of rights is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 20 April 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-164/20)

(2020/C 230/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Airhelp Limited

Respondent: Austrian Airlines AG

Question referred

Are Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the illness and associated unfitness to fly, as diagnosed by an airport doctor, of a passenger who has already boarded an aircraft which has not yet taken off — after which the air carrier refuses to carry that passenger, with the result that the passenger must leave the aircraft and his baggage must be unloaded — must be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights?

---

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

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 22 April 2020 — BB v Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija

(Case C-166/20)

(2020/C 230/23)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BB

Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 10(b) of Directive 2005/36/EC, (1) when interpreted together with the purpose of the directive specified in Article 1, be interpreted as being applicable in a situation where a person has not obtained formal evidence of qualifications because he or she has potentially fulfilled the requirements necessary for obtaining the professional qualifications in several Member States of the European Union rather than in a single one? In such a situation, where a person has not acquired formal evidence of qualifications because he or she has potentially fulfilled the requirements necessary for obtaining the professional qualifications in several Member States of the European Union rather than in a single one, should Chapter I (General system for the recognition of evidence of training) of Title III of Directive 2005/36/EC be interpreted as obliging the institution recognising qualifications to assess the content of all the documents submitted by the person which can demonstrate professional qualifications and whether they comply with the requirements set in the host Member State for obtaining the professional qualifications and, if necessary, to apply compensation measures? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 10(b) of Directive 2005/36/EC, (1) when interpreted together with the purpose of the directive specified in Article 1, be interpreted as being applicable in a situation where a person has not obtained formal evidence of qualifications because he or she has potentially fulfilled the requirements necessary for obtaining the professional qualifications in several Member States of the European Union rather than in a single one? In such a situation, where a person has not acquired formal evidence of qualifications because he or she has potentially fulfilled the requirements necessary for obtaining the professional qualifications in several Member States of the European Union rather than in a single one, should Chapter I (General system for the recognition of evidence of training) of Title III of Directive 2005/36/EC be interpreted as obliging the institution recognising qualifications to assess the content of all the documents submitted by the person which can demonstrate professional qualifications and whether they comply with the requirements set in the host Member State for obtaining the professional qualifications and, if necessary, to apply compensation measures?

| 2. | In a situation such as that in the present case, where the applicant has potentially fulfilled the requirements necessary for obtaining the professional qualifications as a pharmacist for the purposes of Article 44 in Section 7 of Chapter III of Directive 2005/36/EC but those requirements have been fulfilled in several Member States of the European Union rather than in a single one and, therefore, the applicant does not hold the evidence attesting to professional qualifications that is laid down in point 5.6.2 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC, should Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and Article 15 of the Charter be interpreted as obliging the competent authorities of the host Member State to assess the professional training of the applicant and to compare it with the professional training required in the host State, and also to assess the content of the documents submitted which can demonstrate professional qualifications and whether they comply with the requirements set in the host Member State for obtaining the professional qualifications, and, if necessary, to apply compensation measures? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In a situation such as that in the present case, where the applicant has potentially fulfilled the requirements necessary for obtaining the professional qualifications as a pharmacist for the purposes of Article 44 in Section 7 of Chapter III of Directive 2005/36/EC but those requirements have been fulfilled in several Member States of the European Union rather than in a single one and, therefore, the applicant does not hold the evidence attesting to professional qualifications that is laid down in point 5.6.2 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC, should Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and Article 15 of the Charter be interpreted as obliging the competent authorities of the host Member State to assess the professional training of the applicant and to compare it with the professional training required in the host State, and also to assess the content of the documents submitted which can demonstrate professional qualifications and whether they comply with the requirements set in the host Member State for obtaining the professional qualifications, and, if necessary, to apply compensation measures?

---

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

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — XC

(Case C-195/20)

(2020/C 230/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XC

Other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Question referred

Is Article 27(2) and (3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, (1) as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the specialty rule does not preclude a measure involving deprivation of liberty for an offence committed prior to surrender other than that on which the surrender is based if the person voluntarily left the territory of the issuing Member State after the surrender, was subsequently surrendered again by another executing Member State to the territory of the issuing Member State pursuant to a new European arrest warrant, and the second executing Member State gave its consent to prosecution, sentencing and execution in respect of that other offence?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava III (Slovakia) lodged on 11 May 2020 — criminal proceedings against AB and Others, other parties HI and Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave

(Case C-203/20)

(2020/C 230/25)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava III

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendants: AB, CD, EF, GH, IJ, LM, NO, PR, ST, UV, WZ, BC, DE, FG and JL

Other parties: HI and Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the ne bis in idem principle preclude the issuance of a European arrest warrant within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, and taking into account Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, where the criminal case has been finally closed by a judicial decision to acquit or to discontinue the case, if those decisions have been adopted on the basis of an amnesty that has been revoked by the legislature after the decisions became final and the domestic legal order provides that revocation of such an amnesty entails annulment of decisions of public authorities, where they have been adopted and substantiated on the basis of amnesties or pardons, and the legal obstacles of criminal prosecutions that were based on an amnesty thus revoked have disappeared, without a specific judicial decision or judicial proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the ne bis in idem principle preclude the issuance of a European arrest warrant within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, and taking into account Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, where the criminal case has been finally closed by a judicial decision to acquit or to discontinue the case, if those decisions have been adopted on the basis of an amnesty that has been revoked by the legislature after the decisions became final and the domestic legal order provides that revocation of such an amnesty entails annulment of decisions of public authorities, where they have been adopted and substantiated on the basis of amnesties or pardons, and the legal obstacles of criminal prosecutions that were based on an amnesty thus revoked have disappeared, without a specific judicial decision or judicial proceedings?

| 2. | Does a provision of a national law that annuls directly — without a decision of a national court — the decision of a national court discontinuing criminal proceedings, which is, under national law, a final decision entailing acquittal and on the basis of which the criminal proceedings have been finally discontinued following the amnesty granted in accordance with a national law, comply with the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does a provision of a national law that annuls directly — without a decision of a national court — the decision of a national court discontinuing criminal proceedings, which is, under national law, a final decision entailing acquittal and on the basis of which the criminal proceedings have been finally discontinued following the amnesty granted in accordance with a national law, comply with the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 3. | Does a provision of national law limiting review by the Constitutional Court of the Resolution of the Národná rada Slovenskej republiky (National Council of the Slovak Republic), which revoked an amnesty or individual pardons and was adopted under Article 86(i) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, merely to an assessment of the resolution’s constitutionality, without taking into account binding acts adopted by the European Union, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty on European Union, comply with the principle of sincere cooperation within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does a provision of national law limiting review by the Constitutional Court of the Resolution of the Národná rada Slovenskej republiky (National Council of the Slovak Republic), which revoked an amnesty or individual pardons and was adopted under Article 86(i) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, merely to an assessment of the resolution’s constitutionality, without taking into account binding acts adopted by the European Union, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty on European Union, comply with the principle of sincere cooperation within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission

(Case T-399/16) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Wireless telecommunications - Retail market for mobile telecommunication services - Market for wholesale access and call origination on public mobile networks - Acquisition of Telefónica Europe by Hutchison - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market - Oligopolistic market - Significant impediment to effective competition - Non-coordinated effects - Burden of proof - Standard of proof - Market shares - Effects of the merger on prices - Quantitative analysis of upward pricing pressure - Close competitors - Important competitive constraint - Important competitive force - Network-sharing agreements - Level of concentration - Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index - Error of law - Error of assessment)

(2020/C 230/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Wessely, O. Brouwer, lawyers, A. Woods, M. Davis, I. Ditchfield, S. Prichard, J. Aitken, R. Romney, M. Dickson and K. Asakura, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, G. Conte, M. Farley, J. Szczodrowski and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Jones, S. Brandon, S. Huijts, C. Blairs, M. Rahman, J. McInnes, M. Brown, B. Potterill, S. Cardell, C. Brannigan, S. Munday, C. Short and A. Dadley, Agents, and R. Williams and J. Morrison, Barristers), EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Lindsay, Barrister, C. Chapman and J. Hulsmann, Solicitors)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 2796 final of 11 May 2016 declaring incompatible with the internal market the concentration resulting from the acquisition of Telefónica Europe Plc by Hutchison 3G UK Investments Ltd (Case COMP/M.7612 — Hutchison 3G UK/Telefónica UK).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 2796 final of 11 May 2016 declaring incompatible with the internal market the concentration resulting from the acquisition of Telefónica Europe Plc by Hutchison 3G UK Investments Ltd (Case COMP/M.7612 — Hutchison 3G UK/Telefónica UK); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 2796 final of 11 May 2016 declaring incompatible with the internal market the concentration resulting from the acquisition of Telefónica Europe Plc by Hutchison 3G UK Investments Ltd (Case COMP/M.7612 — Hutchison 3G UK/Telefónica UK);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and EE Ltd to each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and EE Ltd to each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Cerafogli v ECB

(Case T-483/16 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Complaint of discrimination and psychological harassment - Internal administrative inquiry - Rejection of the complaint - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Right to be heard - Request for access to the minutes of the hearings of witnesses - Destruction of the inquiry file - Probative character of the evidence submitted to the Court - Incomplete examination - Psychological harassment - Error of law - Duty to provide assistance - Responsibility - Causal link - Non-material damage)

(2020/C 230/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Feyerbacher and B. Ehlers, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and under Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the ECB of 24 November 2009 concluding the internal administrative inquiry opened following the applicant’s complaint of discrimination and an attack on her dignity constituting psychological harassment and an infringement of the ECB Dignity at Work policy and, if necessary, of the decision of the ECB of 24 March 2010 rejecting her special appeal and, second, an order requiring the ECB to pay her compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 24 November 2009 closing the internal administrative inquiry opened following the complaint by Ms Maria Concetta Cerafogli and annuls the decision of the ECB of 24 March 2010 dismissing the special appeal brought by Ms Cerafogli; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 24 November 2009 closing the internal administrative inquiry opened following the complaint by Ms Maria Concetta Cerafogli and annuls the decision of the ECB of 24 March 2010 dismissing the special appeal brought by Ms Cerafogli;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay to Ms Cerafogli the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of damages; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay to Ms Cerafogli the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of damages;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the ECB to bear, in addition to its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Cerafogli relating to the initial proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal in respect of the action in Case F-43/10, the appeal proceedings in Case T-114/13 P and the present referral proceedings in Case T-483/16 RENV; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the ECB to bear, in addition to its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Cerafogli relating to the initial proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal in respect of the action in Case F-43/10, the appeal proceedings in Case T-114/13 P and the present referral proceedings in Case T-483/16 RENV;

| 5. | Orders Ms Cerafogli to bear one third of her own costs relating to the initial proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal in respect of the action in Case F-43/10, the appeal proceedings in Case T-114/13 P and the present referral proceedings in Case T-483/16 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Ms Cerafogli to bear one third of her own costs relating to the initial proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal in respect of the action in Case F-43/10, the appeal proceedings in Case T-114/13 P and the present referral proceedings in Case T-483/16 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-43/10 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016 under number F-43/10 RENV).

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — ViaSat v Commission

(Case T-649/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document on measures required to ensure compliance by authorised operators of mobile satellite systems with the common conditions referred to in Decision No 626/2008/EC - Implied and express refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Partial refusal of access)

(2020/C 230/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Marco Perpiñà, P. de Bandt and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Inmarsat Ventures Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Spontoni, B. Amory, É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, and A. Howard, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 31 May 2017 for access to the ‘Roadmap of Measures Toward the Compliance of Selected and Authorised Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) Operators with Common Conditions of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008, Including Intermediate New Steps and Corresponding Time Limits’, and, subsequently, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 8219 final of 1 December 2017 refusing access to that roadmap.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that it is no longer necessary to rule on the legality of the European Commission’s implied decision rejecting the confirmatory application for access by ViaSat, Inc. of 31 May 2017 to the ‘Roadmap of Measures Towards the Compliance of Selected and Authorised Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) Operators with Common Conditions of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008, Including Intermediate New Steps and Corresponding Time Limits’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that it is no longer necessary to rule on the legality of the European Commission’s implied decision rejecting the confirmatory application for access by ViaSat, Inc. of 31 May 2017 to the ‘Roadmap of Measures Towards the Compliance of Selected and Authorised Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) Operators with Common Conditions of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008, Including Intermediate New Steps and Corresponding Time Limits’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders ViaSat to pay, in addition to three quarters of its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission and by Inmarsat Ventures Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ViaSat to pay, in addition to three quarters of its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission and by Inmarsat Ventures Ltd;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to one quarter of its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by ViaSat and by Inmarsat Ventures Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to one quarter of its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by ViaSat and by Inmarsat Ventures Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — YG v Commission

(Case T-518/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2017 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 - Comparison of the merits - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)

(2020/C 230/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, B. Eggers and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2017 not to promote the applicant in the 2017 promotion procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission

(Case T-574/18) (1)

(Plant-protection products - Active substance oxasulfuron - Non-renewal of approval for placing on the market - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Manifest error of assessment - Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and point 2.2 of Annex II to Regulation No 1107/2009 - Precautionary principle)

(2020/C 230/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, I. Naglis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1019 of 18 July 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance oxasulfuron, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 183, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures;

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line)

(Case T-615/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line - Earlier EU figurative mark representing the capital letter D and earlier international figurative mark (D) representing an angled line - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 230/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Parassina and A. Giovannardi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and T. Austen, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of EUIPO of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Diesel and Sprinter megacentros del deporte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5) in so far as it concerns the earlier mark No 583708 with regard to ‘men and women’s denim jeans’ and ‘footwear’ in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5) in so far as it concerns the earlier mark No 583708 with regard to ‘men and women’s denim jeans’ and ‘footwear’ in Class 25;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Diesel SpA, EUIPO and Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Diesel SpA, EUIPO and Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Intercontinental Great Brands (gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH)

(Case T-677/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH - Earlier EU figurative mark OREO - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita and M. Corbal San Adrián, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC (East Hanover, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2018 (Case R 2378/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Intercontinental Great Brands and Galletas Gullón.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Galletas Gullón, SA, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred in the present proceedings by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Intercontinental Great Brands LLC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Galletas Gullón, SA, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred in the present proceedings by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Intercontinental Great Brands LLC.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T-681/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark STAYER - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Categorisation of the goods in connection with which genuine use has been proved)

(2020/C 230/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 (Case R 1940/2017-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ and Stayer Ibérica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Consejo Regulador ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ v EUIPO — Airesano Foods (AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel)

(Case T-696/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel - Earlier EU figurative mark JAMON DE TERUEL CONSEJO REGULADOR DE LA DENOMINACION DE ORIGEN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ (Teruel, Spain) (represented by F. Pérez Álvarez and J. Pérez Itarte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. F. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Airesano Foods, SL (La Puebla de Valverde, Spain) (represented by: J. Sanmartín, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and M. J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 (Case R 88/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ and Airesano Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Airesano Foods, SL; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Airesano Foods, SL;

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 –Campbell v Commission

(Case T-701/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents in relation to Ireland’s compliance or non-compliance with its obligations under Council Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of confidentiality)

(2020/C 230/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liam Campbell (Dundalk, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor, and E. Martin-Vignerte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 6642 final of 4 October 2018 refusing access to documents in relation to Ireland’s compliance or non-compliance with its obligations under Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27), Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions (OJ 2008 L 337, p. 102) and Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (OJ 2009 L 294, p. 20).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision C(2018) 6642 final of the European Commission of 4 October 2018 refusing access to documents in relation to Ireland’s compliance or non-compliance with its obligations under Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions and Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision C(2018) 6642 final of the European Commission of 4 October 2018 refusing access to documents in relation to Ireland’s compliance or non-compliance with its obligations under Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions and Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)

(Case T-724/18 and T-184/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS - Earlier EU word mark AUREA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Correction of the Board of Appeal’s decision - Article 102 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd (Cochin, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth QC and L. Oommen, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Avizel SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. De Keersmaeker and W.-J. Cosemans, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought, in Case T-724/18, against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2018 (Case R 814/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Avizel and Aurea Biolabs, and, in Case T-184/19, action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2019 (Case R 814/2018-2 (CORR)), correcting the decision of 11 September 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-724/18 and T-184/19 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-724/18 and T-184/19 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Avizel SA to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Avizel SA to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Darment v Commission

(Case T-739/18) (1)

(Environment - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision finding that an undertaking exceeded the quota allocated to it and imposing on it a penalty - Correction of the electronic registry for quotas - Transfer of quota - Authorisation to use a quota - Principle of good administration)

(2020/C 230/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, A.C. Becker and M. Jauregui Gomez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that the applicant exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the European Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that Darment Oy exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the European Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that Darment Oy exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International ([We IntelliGence the World and Others])

(Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the EU figurative marks We IntelliGence the World, currencymachineassistant, robodealer, currencyassistant, tradingcurrencyassistant, CKPL, moneypersonalassistant, moneyassistant, currencypersonalassistant, CNTX Trading, AIdealer and CNTX - Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing two intertwining circles or two overlapping circles - Suspension of proceedings - Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2020/C 230/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen, B. Hitchens and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton and A. Muir Wood, Barristers)

Re:

Twelve actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 (Cases R 1062/2018-2, R 1059/2018-2, R 1058/2018-2, R 1057/2018-2, R 1056/2018-2, R 1060/2018-2, R 1055/2018-2, R 1054/2018-2, R 1053/2018-2, R 986/2018-2, R 1063/2018-2 and R 1064/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between MasterCard International and Cinkciarz.pl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 December 2018 (Cases R 1062/2018-2, R 1059/2018-2, R 1058/2018-2, R 1057/2018-2, R 1056/2018-2, R 1060/2018-2, R 1055/2018-2, R 1054/2018-2, R 1053/2018-2, R 986/2018-2, R 1063/2018-2 and R 1064/2018-2); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 December 2018 (Cases R 1062/2018-2, R 1059/2018-2, R 1058/2018-2, R 1057/2018-2, R 1056/2018-2, R 1060/2018-2, R 1055/2018-2, R 1054/2018-2, R 1053/2018-2, R 986/2018-2, R 1063/2018-2 and R 1064/2018-2);

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court;

| 4. | Orders MasterCard International, Inc. to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders MasterCard International, Inc. to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — AW v Parliament

(Case T-213/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Article 16 - Statement of occupational disease - Article 22 - Medical Committee - Refusal to recognise the occupational nature of a disease - Irregularity of the opinion of the Medical Committee)

(2020/C 230/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AW (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decisions of 7 August 2018 rejecting the requests to recognise the occupational nature of a disease, submitted by the applicant on 15 and 28 July 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 7 August 2018 rejecting the requests for recognition of the occupational nature of AW’s diseases of 15 and 28 July 2016; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 7 August 2018 rejecting the requests for recognition of the occupational nature of AW’s diseases of 15 and 28 July 2016;

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

2.

Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES)

(Case T-333/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES - Earlier EU word mark GNC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Rijsdijk, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2019 (Case R 1343/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between General Nutrition Investment and Mr Ntolas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Christos Ntolas to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by General Nutrition Investment Co. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Christos Ntolas to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by General Nutrition Investment Co.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)

(Case T-341/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark TASER - Earlier EU word marks TASER - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Detriment to reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Martínez Albainox, SL (Albacete, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Taser International, Inc. (Scottsdale, Arizona, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2019 (Case R 1577/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Taser International and Martínez Albainox.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Martínez Albainox, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Martínez Albainox, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)

(Case T-342/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark TASER - Earlier EU word marks TASER - Relative grounds for refusal - Detriment to reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Martínez Albainox, SL (Albacete, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Taser International, Inc. (Scottsdale, Arizona, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2019 (Case R 1576/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Taser International and Martínez Albainox.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Martínez Albainox, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Martínez Albainox, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Workplace Group v EUIPO — Technopolis Holding (UMA WORKSPACE)

(Case T-506/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark UMA WORKSPACE - Earlier EU figurative mark and earlier UK figurative and word marks WORKSPACE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Workplace Group plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Hine, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Technopolis Holding Oyj (Oulu, Finland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 (Case R 1910/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Workspace Group and Technopolis Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Workspace Group plc to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Workspace Group plc to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 —Lozano Arana and Others v EUIPO — Coltejer (LIBERTADOR)

(Case T-564/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark LIBERTADOR - Genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Due notification - Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (now Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Failure to produce proof of genuine use of the mark within the time limit prescribed - Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2017/1430 (now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625)

(2020/C 230/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Lozano Arana (Cali, Colombia), Daniel Simon Benmaor (Marseilles, France), Marion Esther Benmaor (Marseilles), Valérie Brigitte Danielle Servant (Marrakesh, Morocco) (represented by: M. Angelier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Coltejer SA (Itagüí, Colombia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 (Case R 2482/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Coltejer and Mr Albert Benmaor and Mr Lozano Arana.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Antonio Lozano Arana, Mr Daniel Simon Benmaor, Ms Marion Esther Benmaor and Ms Valérie Brigitte Danielle Servant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Antonio Lozano Arana, Mr Daniel Simon Benmaor, Ms Marion Esther Benmaor and Ms Valérie Brigitte Danielle Servant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---