# Official Journal C 463/5 De

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 463 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 655 December 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 463

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 655 December 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 463/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2022/C 463/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2022/C 463/02 | Case C-344/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — L.F. v SCRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Establishment of a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief — Internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting any manifestation, in the workplace, of religious, philosophical or political belief — Prohibition including words, clothing, or any other means of manifesting those beliefs — Wearing of an item of religious clothing) | 2 |
| 2022/C 463/03 | Case C-616/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — M2Beauté Cosmetics GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 1(2)(b) — Concept of medicinal product by function — No scientific study — Scientific knowledge on a structural analogue — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Cosmetic product — Specific beneficial effects on human health — Direct or indirect beneficial effects — Positive effects on appearance) | 3 |
| 2022/C 463/04 | Case C-698/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Gmina Wieliszew v Syndyk masy upadłości Spółdzielczego Banku Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa w Wołominie w upadłości likwidacyjnej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural Funds — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Cohesion Fund — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 — European Union funding — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Grant agreement — Funds paid to a beneficiary into an account in an insolvent bank — National legislation not excluding those funds from the insolvency estate of that bank) | 4 |
| 2022/C 463/05 | Case C-713/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v X, Y v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 11(3)(a) and (e) — Person residing in one Member State and employed in another Member State — Employment contract or contracts entered into with a single temporary employment agency — Temporary work assignments — Intervening periods — Determination of the legislation applicable during intervening periods between temporary work assignments — Termination of the employment relationship) | 5 |
| 2022/C 463/06 | Case C-1/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — MC v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Measures to ensure the correct collection of VAT — Article 325(1) TFEU — Obligation to counter illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union — VAT debts of a taxable legal person — National legislation which provides for the joint and several liability of the non-taxable manager of the legal person — Transfers made in bad faith by the manager — Depletion of the legal person’s assets leading to insolvency — Failure to pay the amounts of VAT payable by the legal person within the prescribed time limits — Default interest — Proportionality) | 5 |
| 2022/C 463/07 | Case C-64/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Rigall Arteria Management sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 7(1)(b) — Self-employed commercial agents — Transaction concluded with a third party whom the commercial agent has previously acquired as a customer — Remuneration — Whether the agent’s right to commission is mandatory or supplementary) | 6 |
| 2022/C 463/08 | Joined Cases C-164/21 and C-318/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa, Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — Baltijas Starptautiskā Akadēmija SIA (C-164/21), Stockholm School of Economics in Riga SIA (C-318/21) v Latvijas Zinātnes padome (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Article 2(83) — Direct and unconditional reference to EU law — Admissibility of the questions — Research and development and innovation aid — Concept of research and knowledge-dissemination organisation — Higher education establishment carrying on economic and non-economic activities — Determination of the primary goal) | 7 |
| 2022/C 463/09 | Case C-199/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — DN v Finanzamt Österreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 67 and 68 — Family benefits — Right to benefits under a pension — Pensioner in receipt of pensions from two Member States — Member State(s) in which that pensioner is entitled to family benefits — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Third sentence of Article 60(1) — Legislation of a Member State providing for the award of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his or her household — Failure by that parent to claim the award of those benefits — Obligation to take into account the application submitted by the other parent — Request for the recovery of family benefits paid to the other parent — Whether permissible) | 8 |
| 2022/C 463/10 | Case C-256/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade marks — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 124(a) and (d) — Article 128 — Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts — Action for infringement — Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the action for infringement — Outcome of the counterclaim — Autonomous nature of the counterclaim) | 9 |
| 2022/C 463/11 | Case C-355/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k. v Procter & Gamble International Operations SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Article 10 — Corrective measures — Destruction of goods — Concept of infringement of an intellectual property right — Goods bearing an EU trade mark) | 9 |
| 2022/C 463/12 | Case C-397/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Request for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Sales which are not subject to VAT — VAT unduly invoiced and paid — Liquidation of the provider — Refusal by the tax authority to refund to the customer VAT improperly paid — Principles of effectiveness, tax neutrality and non-discrimination) | 10 |
| 2022/C 463/13 | Case C-405/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) and Article 8 — Criteria for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term — Significant imbalance between the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract — Requirement of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier — Possibility of ensuring a higher level of protection than that provided for in the directive) | 11 |
| 2022/C 463/14 | Case C-431/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Corporation tax — Determination of the taxable income of companies — Transactions featuring foreign elements — Obligation to provide fiscal documentation of business relations between parties with a relationship of interdependence — Estimate of the taxable income and surcharge by way of a penalty) | 12 |
| 2022/C 463/15 | Case C-437/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Liberty Lines SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Articles 1 and 4 — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Article 1 — Direct award of public service contracts — Public services for high-speed maritime passenger transport — Treatment like railway transport services provided by sea) | 12 |
| 2022/C 463/16 | Case C-593/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — NY v Herios SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17(2)(a) — Self-employed commercial agents — Termination of the agency contract by the principal — Compensation of the agent — Goodwill indemnity — Sub-agency — Right of the subagent to a proportion of the goodwill indemnity payable to the main agent corresponding to the customers brought by the subagent) | 13 |
| 2022/C 463/17 | Case C-79/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 February 2022 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2021 in Case T-719/21, Correia de Matos v Commission | 14 |
| 2022/C 463/18 | Case C-446/22 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-237/21, Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS) | 14 |
| 2022/C 463/19 | Case C-533/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2022 — SC Adient Ltd & Co. KG v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș | 14 |
| 2022/C 463/20 | Case C-540/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg (Netherlands) lodged on 11 August 2022 — SN and Others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid | 15 |
| 2022/C 463/21 | Case C-549/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 18 August 2022 — X v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank | 16 |
| 2022/C 463/22 | Case C-572/22 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2022 by Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2022 in Case T-334/21 Mendes de Almeida v Council | 17 |
| 2022/C 463/23 | Case C-585/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 September 2022 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 17 |
| 2022/C 463/24 | Case C-590/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wesel (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2022 — AT, BT v PS GbR, VG, MB, DH, WB, GS | 18 |
| 2022/C 463/25 | Case C-596/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 15 September 2022 — Mr J. O. v Kreis Gütersloh | 18 |
| 2022/C 463/26 | Case C-598/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 September 2022 — Società Italiana Imprese Balneari Srl v Comune di Rosignano Marittimo and Others | 19 |
| 2022/C 463/27 | Case C-651/22: Action brought on 17 October 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 20 |
| 2022/C 463/28 | Case C-668/22: Action brought on 21 October 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic | 21 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 463/29 | Case T-421/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document relating to a decision refusing a third party full access to trilogue tables relating to the proposal for a regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA — Refusal to grant access — Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception for the protection of court proceedings and legal advice) | 22 |
| 2022/C 463/30 | Case T-502/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 –Corneli v ECB (Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions — Early intervention measures — Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige under temporary administration — Action for annulment — Action brought by a shareholder — Standing to bring proceedings — Interest separate from that of the bank — Admissibility — Error of law in the determination of the legal basis — Interpretation of national law by the EU Courts in conformity with EU law — Limit — Prohibition on interpreting national law contra legem) | 22 |
| 2022/C 463/31 | Case T-552/19 OP: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Malacalza Investimenti v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — ECB’s decision to place Banca Carige under temporary administration — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information protected as such under EU law — General presumption of confidentiality — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person, including intellectual property — Meaning of confidential information — Obligation to state reasons — Opposition) | 23 |
| 2022/C 463/32 | Case T-627/20: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — LAICO v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list — Error of assessment) | 24 |
| 2022/C 463/33 | Case T-711/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CMS Italy — Earlier international figurative marks representing a feline bounding towards the left and earlier international figurative mark PUMA — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the signs — Proof of reputation — Overall assessment) | 25 |
| 2022/C 463/34 | Case T-761/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB (Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Exclusion from the procurement procedure — Abnormally low offer — Attempts to unduly influence the decision-making process — Failure to observe the rules on communication — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Non-contractual liability) | 26 |
| 2022/C 463/35 | Case T-83/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Van Walle v ECDC (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — ECDC staff members — Decision not to renew a contract — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Right to be heard — Action for annulment and for damages) | 26 |
| 2022/C 463/36 | Case T-88/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Paesen v EEAS (Civil service — Official — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Head of delegation — Management trial period — Final assessment report of the management trial period — Act not adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility — Re-assignment to a non-managerial post at EEAS headquarters — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Conditions for the application of Article 11 of Commission Decision C (2008) 5028/2 of 9 September 2008 on middle management staff to heads of delegation — Failure to include documents in the personal file — Interests of the service — Misuse of powers — Request for assistance — Decision rejecting the request — Liability) | 27 |
| 2022/C 463/37 | Case T-168/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Magnetec v EUIPO (Light blue) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of light blue — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Limitation of goods designated by the trade mark application — Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Requirements of clarity and precision — Article 33(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 28 |
| 2022/C 463/38 | Case T-174/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Agrofert v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the investigation against the former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on the misuse of EU funds and potential conflicts of interest — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Interest in bringing proceedings in part ceasing to exist — No need to adjudicate in part — Obligation to state reasons) | 28 |
| 2022/C 463/39 | Case T-222/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Shopify v EUIPO — Rossi and Others (Shoppi) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — EU figurative mark Shoppi — Earlier EU word mark SHOPIFY — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom (Brexit)) | 29 |
| 2022/C 463/40 | Case T-311/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — SV v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Performance appraisal — Promotion — Administrative review — Special procedure applicable to appraisal decisions — Rule of correspondence between the administrative review and the subsequent application — Intensity of the review — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Liability) | 30 |
| 2022/C 463/41 | Case T-352/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission (Institutional law — Selection of partners to carry out Europe Direct (2021-2025) activities in Greece — Call for proposals procedure — Eligibility criteria — Rejection of application) | 30 |
| 2022/C 463/42 | Case T-429/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina sociale Tollo (ALDIANO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ALDIANO — Earlier EU word marks and earlier international word registration ALDI — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 31 |
| 2022/C 463/43 | Case T-454/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — G-Core Innovations v EUIPO — Coretransform (G CORELABS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark G CORELABS — Earlier EU figurative mark CORE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 31 |
| 2022/C 463/44 | Case T-496/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Vasallo Andrés v Parliament (Institutional law — Petitions Committee of the Parliament — Petition concerning the disciplinary regime for public employees in Spain — Question not coming within the scope of activity of the European Union — Obligation to state reasons — Conflict of interest — Effect of posting the status of a petition on the Parliament’s Internet petitions portal) | 32 |
| 2022/C 463/45 | Case T-517/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Grieger v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Secondment — Commitment to reassign to a middle management post at the end of the secondment — Request to be reassigned — Interests of the service — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials) | 33 |
| 2022/C 463/46 | Case T-524/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Saure v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission correspondence with AstraZeneca and the German authorities concerning the quantity of COVID-19 vaccines and their delivery times — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — Documents having been produced in the context of court proceedings that were closed at the time of adoption of the decision refusing access to those documents — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of a third party) | 33 |
| 2022/C 463/47 | Case T-537/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BODY STAR — Earlier EU word mark Bodyguard — Earlier national word mark Bodyguard — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 34 |
| 2022/C 463/48 | Case T-539/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative mark airframe — Absolute grounds for refusal — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 35 |
| 2022/C 463/49 | Case T-572/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPAL TREE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark COPAL TREE — Earlier national figurative mark COMPAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 36 |
| 2022/C 463/50 | Case T-589/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Serrano Velázquez v Parliament (Institutional law — Petitions Committee of the Parliament — Petition concerning the infringement by the Spanish authorities of EU law in the field of fundamental rights — Decision to dismiss the petition — Obligation to state reasons) | 36 |
| 2022/C 463/51 | Case T-599/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (Body-Star) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Body-Star — Earlier EU word mark Bodyguard — Relative ground for refusal — Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation) | 37 |
| 2022/C 463/52 | Case T-618/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — WV v CdT (Civil service — Temporary agents — Sick leave — Unjustified absences — Termination of contract without notice — Article 16 of the CEOS — Article 48(b) of the CEOS — Liability) | 37 |
| 2022/C 463/53 | Case T-652/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a coupling for connecting refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment to a motor vehicle — Grounds for invalidity — Novelty — Individual character — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002 — Scope of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Earlier design produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(i), (v) and (vi) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002) | 38 |
| 2022/C 463/54 | Case T-656/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS — Earlier EU figurative mark HCapital — Relative ground for refusal — Relevant public — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 39 |
| 2022/C 463/55 | Case T-663/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Zegers v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Retirement pension — Transfer of national pension rights — Condition requiring acquisition before entry into the service of the European Union — Recognition by the national authority of a period after entry into the service of the European Union) | 39 |
| 2022/C 463/56 | Case T-696/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Les Bordes Golf International v EUIPO — Mast-Jägermeister (LES BORDES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark LES BORDES — Earlier international figurative mark consisting of inter alia a stag’s head — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 40 |
| 2022/C 463/57 | Case T-752/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Associação do Socorro e Amparo v EUIPO — De Bragança (quis ut Deus) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark quis ut Deus — Lack of genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 40 |
| 2022/C 463/58 | Case T-802/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — just-organic.com v EUIPO (JUST ORGANIC) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark JUST ORGANIC — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 41 |
| 2022/C 463/59 | Case T-58/22: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Labaš v EUIPO (FRESH) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark FRESH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 42 |
| 2022/C 463/60 | Case T-738/18 RENV: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Dragnea v Commission (External investigations conducted by OLAF — Refusal of access to the OLAF investigation file — Withdrawal and replacement of the contested measure — Action now devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 42 |
| 2022/C 463/61 | Case T-517/19 INTP: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Homoki v Commission (Interpretation of a judgment — Inadmissiblity) | 43 |
| 2022/C 463/62 | Case T-45/20: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — KRBL v EUIPO — P.K. Overseas (INDIA SALAM Pure Basmati Rice) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Expiry of the international registration of the mark applied for — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 43 |
| 2022/C 463/63 | Joined Cases T-101/21 and T-213/21: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Primagra and Mlékárna Hlinsko v Commission (Actions for annulment — European Structural and Investment Funds — ERDF — Cohesion Fund — ESF — Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 — Letter concerning the follow-up of recommendations set out by the Commission in its audit of alleged conflicts of interest — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility) | 44 |
| 2022/C 463/64 | Case T-514/21: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Associazione Terra Mia Amici No Tap v EIB (Action for failure to act — Environment — Financing of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline — Resolution of the Board of Directors of the EIB approving the financing — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for internal review — Answer given after the action was brought — Application for an injunction — Lack of jurisdiction — Plea of inadmissibility — No need to adjudicate) | 44 |
| 2022/C 463/65 | Case T-518/21: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2022 — European Paper Packaging Alliance v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Commission Guidelines on single-use plastic products — Directive (EU) 2019/904 — Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 45 |
| 2022/C 463/66 | Case T-624/21: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2022 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran — Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Prohibition of reformatio in pejus — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 46 |
| 2022/C 463/67 | Case T-653/21: Order of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — Callaway v Commission (Action for annulment — Common agricultural policy — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Plant varieties — Producer of the hemp variety Finola — Areas cultivated in Poland — Hemp varieties eligible for financial support under the common agricultural policy — Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content — Authorisation given to Poland to prohibit the marketing of the Finola variety in its territory — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility) | 46 |
| 2022/C 463/68 | Case T-697/21: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — FC v EUAA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Disciplinary proceedings — Refusal of request to stay disciplinary proceedings pending judgments of the General Court in related cases — Delivery of judgments of the General Court in the related pending cases — No need to adjudicate) | 47 |
| 2022/C 463/69 | Case T-788/21: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2022 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission (Action for annulment — Commercial policy — Dumping — Imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Independent importer — No individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 48 |
| 2022/C 463/70 | Case T-1/22: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in China — Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Importer — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 48 |
| 2022/C 463/71 | Case T-41/22: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2022 — Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament (Action for annulment — Parliament resolution on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 49 |
| 2022/C 463/72 | Case T-53/22: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Collard v ID (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group — Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate) | 49 |
| 2022/C 463/73 | Case T-54/22: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Rivière v ID (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group — Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate) | 50 |
| 2022/C 463/74 | Case T-101/22: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2022 — OG and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/503 — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 — Regulation (EU) 2021/953 — EU Digital COVID Certificate — Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 51 |
| 2022/C 463/75 | Case T-103/22: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2022 — ON v Commission (Action for annulment — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 — Regulation (EU) 2021/953 — EU Digital COVID Certificate — Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 51 |
| 2022/C 463/76 | Case T-134/22: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2022 — OO v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance reduced by half — Salary statement — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 52 |
| 2022/C 463/77 | Case T-165/22: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Saure v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Refusal to grant access — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility) | 52 |
| 2022/C 463/78 | Case T-281/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Xpand Consortium and Others v Commission (Interim relief — Public supply contracts — Provision of Development, Implementation, Maintenance/Operations, Advice and Consultancy Services in Accounting/Finance and Financial IT Systems — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency) | 53 |
| 2022/C 463/79 | Case T-416/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 October 2022 — Fresenius Kabi Austria and Others v Commission (Interim relief — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing the active substance hydroxyethyl starch (HES), solutions for infusion — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 53 |
| 2022/C 463/80 | Case T-581/22: Action brought on 19 September 2022 — ECE Group v EUIPO — ECE Piknik Ürünleri Plastik ve Kömür Üretim Ithalat Ihracat (ECE QUALITY OF LIFE) | 54 |
| 2022/C 463/81 | Case T-593/22: Action brought on 23 September 2022 — RM v Parliament | 55 |
| 2022/C 463/82 | Case T-630/22: Action brought on 10 October 2022 — Topper Argentina v EUIPO — Ningbo Xiangxinli Network Technology (wetoper) | 56 |
| 2022/C 463/83 | Case T-631/22: Action brought on 11 October 2022 — Beijing Unicorn Technology v EUIPO — WD Plus (Device of a circle with two sharp points) | 56 |
| 2022/C 463/84 | Case T-639/22: Action brought on 12 October 2022 — VF International v EUIPO — Super Brand Licencing (GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY EXPEDITION) | 57 |
| 2022/C 463/85 | Case T-645/22: Action brought on 15 October 2022 — C. & S. v EUIPO — Scuderia AlphaTauri (CS jeans your best fashion partner) | 58 |
| 2022/C 463/86 | Case T-646/22: Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — e-bility (Scooter) | 58 |
| 2022/C 463/87 | Case T-647/22: Action brought on 17 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Shoes) | 59 |
| 2022/C 463/88 | Case T-649/22: Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Shammout v Council | 60 |
| 2022/C 463/89 | Case T-653/22: Action brought on 19 October 2022 — Silex v Commission | 60 |
| 2022/C 463/90 | Case T-335/20: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2022 — Czech Republic v Commission | 61 |
| 2022/C 463/91 | Case T-11/22: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET) | 61 |
| 2022/C 463/92 | Case T-138/22: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — HCP v EUIPO — Timm Health Care (PYLOMED) | 62 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 463/02

Case C-344/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — L.F. v SCRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Establishment of a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief — Internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting any manifestation, in the workplace, of religious, philosophical or political belief — Prohibition including words, clothing, or any other means of manifesting those beliefs — Wearing of an item of religious clothing)

2

2022/C 463/03

Case C-616/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — M2Beauté Cosmetics GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 1(2)(b) — Concept of medicinal product by function — No scientific study — Scientific knowledge on a structural analogue — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Cosmetic product — Specific beneficial effects on human health — Direct or indirect beneficial effects — Positive effects on appearance)

3

2022/C 463/04

Case C-698/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Gmina Wieliszew v Syndyk masy upadłości Spółdzielczego Banku Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa w Wołominie w upadłości likwidacyjnej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural Funds — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Cohesion Fund — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 — European Union funding — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Grant agreement — Funds paid to a beneficiary into an account in an insolvent bank — National legislation not excluding those funds from the insolvency estate of that bank)

4

2022/C 463/05

Case C-713/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v X, Y v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 11(3)(a) and (e) — Person residing in one Member State and employed in another Member State — Employment contract or contracts entered into with a single temporary employment agency — Temporary work assignments — Intervening periods — Determination of the legislation applicable during intervening periods between temporary work assignments — Termination of the employment relationship)

5

2022/C 463/06

Case C-1/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — MC v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Measures to ensure the correct collection of VAT — Article 325(1) TFEU — Obligation to counter illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union — VAT debts of a taxable legal person — National legislation which provides for the joint and several liability of the non-taxable manager of the legal person — Transfers made in bad faith by the manager — Depletion of the legal person’s assets leading to insolvency — Failure to pay the amounts of VAT payable by the legal person within the prescribed time limits — Default interest — Proportionality)

5

2022/C 463/07

Case C-64/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Rigall Arteria Management sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 7(1)(b) — Self-employed commercial agents — Transaction concluded with a third party whom the commercial agent has previously acquired as a customer — Remuneration — Whether the agent’s right to commission is mandatory or supplementary)

6

2022/C 463/08

Joined Cases C-164/21 and C-318/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa, Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — Baltijas Starptautiskā Akadēmija SIA (C-164/21), Stockholm School of Economics in Riga SIA (C-318/21) v Latvijas Zinātnes padome (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Article 2(83) — Direct and unconditional reference to EU law — Admissibility of the questions — Research and development and innovation aid — Concept of research and knowledge-dissemination organisation — Higher education establishment carrying on economic and non-economic activities — Determination of the primary goal)

7

2022/C 463/09

Case C-199/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — DN v Finanzamt Österreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 67 and 68 — Family benefits — Right to benefits under a pension — Pensioner in receipt of pensions from two Member States — Member State(s) in which that pensioner is entitled to family benefits — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Third sentence of Article 60(1) — Legislation of a Member State providing for the award of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his or her household — Failure by that parent to claim the award of those benefits — Obligation to take into account the application submitted by the other parent — Request for the recovery of family benefits paid to the other parent — Whether permissible)

8

2022/C 463/10

Case C-256/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade marks — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 124(a) and (d) — Article 128 — Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts — Action for infringement — Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the action for infringement — Outcome of the counterclaim — Autonomous nature of the counterclaim)

9

2022/C 463/11

Case C-355/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k. v Procter & Gamble International Operations SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Article 10 — Corrective measures — Destruction of goods — Concept of infringement of an intellectual property right — Goods bearing an EU trade mark)

9

2022/C 463/12

Case C-397/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Request for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Sales which are not subject to VAT — VAT unduly invoiced and paid — Liquidation of the provider — Refusal by the tax authority to refund to the customer VAT improperly paid — Principles of effectiveness, tax neutrality and non-discrimination)

10

2022/C 463/13

Case C-405/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) and Article 8 — Criteria for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term — Significant imbalance between the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract — Requirement of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier — Possibility of ensuring a higher level of protection than that provided for in the directive)

11

2022/C 463/14

Case C-431/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Corporation tax — Determination of the taxable income of companies — Transactions featuring foreign elements — Obligation to provide fiscal documentation of business relations between parties with a relationship of interdependence — Estimate of the taxable income and surcharge by way of a penalty)

12

2022/C 463/15

Case C-437/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Liberty Lines SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Articles 1 and 4 — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Article 1 — Direct award of public service contracts — Public services for high-speed maritime passenger transport — Treatment like railway transport services provided by sea)

12

2022/C 463/16

Case C-593/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — NY v Herios SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17(2)(a) — Self-employed commercial agents — Termination of the agency contract by the principal — Compensation of the agent — Goodwill indemnity — Sub-agency — Right of the subagent to a proportion of the goodwill indemnity payable to the main agent corresponding to the customers brought by the subagent)

13

2022/C 463/17

Case C-79/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 February 2022 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2021 in Case T-719/21, Correia de Matos v Commission

14

2022/C 463/18

Case C-446/22 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-237/21, Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS)

14

2022/C 463/19

Case C-533/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2022 — SC Adient Ltd & Co. KG v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș

14

2022/C 463/20

Case C-540/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg (Netherlands) lodged on 11 August 2022 — SN and Others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

15

2022/C 463/21

Case C-549/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 18 August 2022 — X v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

16

2022/C 463/22

Case C-572/22 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2022 by Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2022 in Case T-334/21 Mendes de Almeida v Council

17

2022/C 463/23

Case C-585/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 September 2022 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

17

2022/C 463/24

Case C-590/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wesel (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2022 — AT, BT v PS GbR, VG, MB, DH, WB, GS

18

2022/C 463/25

Case C-596/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 15 September 2022 — Mr J. O. v Kreis Gütersloh

18

2022/C 463/26

Case C-598/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 September 2022 — Società Italiana Imprese Balneari Srl v Comune di Rosignano Marittimo and Others

19

2022/C 463/27

Case C-651/22: Action brought on 17 October 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

20

2022/C 463/28

Case C-668/22: Action brought on 21 October 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

21

General Court

2022/C 463/29

Case T-421/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document relating to a decision refusing a third party full access to trilogue tables relating to the proposal for a regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA — Refusal to grant access — Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception for the protection of court proceedings and legal advice)

22

2022/C 463/30

Case T-502/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 –Corneli v ECB (Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions — Early intervention measures — Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige under temporary administration — Action for annulment — Action brought by a shareholder — Standing to bring proceedings — Interest separate from that of the bank — Admissibility — Error of law in the determination of the legal basis — Interpretation of national law by the EU Courts in conformity with EU law — Limit — Prohibition on interpreting national law contra legem)

22

2022/C 463/31

Case T-552/19 OP: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Malacalza Investimenti v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — ECB’s decision to place Banca Carige under temporary administration — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information protected as such under EU law — General presumption of confidentiality — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person, including intellectual property — Meaning of confidential information — Obligation to state reasons — Opposition)

23

2022/C 463/32

Case T-627/20: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — LAICO v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list — Error of assessment)

24

2022/C 463/33

Case T-711/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CMS Italy — Earlier international figurative marks representing a feline bounding towards the left and earlier international figurative mark PUMA — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the signs — Proof of reputation — Overall assessment)

25

2022/C 463/34

Case T-761/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB (Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Exclusion from the procurement procedure — Abnormally low offer — Attempts to unduly influence the decision-making process — Failure to observe the rules on communication — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Non-contractual liability)

26

2022/C 463/35

Case T-83/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Van Walle v ECDC (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — ECDC staff members — Decision not to renew a contract — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Right to be heard — Action for annulment and for damages)

26

2022/C 463/36

Case T-88/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Paesen v EEAS (Civil service — Official — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Head of delegation — Management trial period — Final assessment report of the management trial period — Act not adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility — Re-assignment to a non-managerial post at EEAS headquarters — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Conditions for the application of Article 11 of Commission Decision C (2008) 5028/2 of 9 September 2008 on middle management staff to heads of delegation — Failure to include documents in the personal file — Interests of the service — Misuse of powers — Request for assistance — Decision rejecting the request — Liability)

27

2022/C 463/37

Case T-168/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Magnetec v EUIPO (Light blue) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of light blue — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Limitation of goods designated by the trade mark application — Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Requirements of clarity and precision — Article 33(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

28

2022/C 463/38

Case T-174/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Agrofert v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the investigation against the former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on the misuse of EU funds and potential conflicts of interest — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Interest in bringing proceedings in part ceasing to exist — No need to adjudicate in part — Obligation to state reasons)

28

2022/C 463/39

Case T-222/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Shopify v EUIPO — Rossi and Others (Shoppi) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — EU figurative mark Shoppi — Earlier EU word mark SHOPIFY — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom (Brexit))

29

2022/C 463/40

Case T-311/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — SV v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Performance appraisal — Promotion — Administrative review — Special procedure applicable to appraisal decisions — Rule of correspondence between the administrative review and the subsequent application — Intensity of the review — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Liability)

30

2022/C 463/41

Case T-352/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission (Institutional law — Selection of partners to carry out Europe Direct (2021-2025) activities in Greece — Call for proposals procedure — Eligibility criteria — Rejection of application)

30

2022/C 463/42

Case T-429/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina sociale Tollo (ALDIANO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ALDIANO — Earlier EU word marks and earlier international word registration ALDI — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

31

2022/C 463/43

Case T-454/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — G-Core Innovations v EUIPO — Coretransform (G CORELABS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark G CORELABS — Earlier EU figurative mark CORE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

31

2022/C 463/44

Case T-496/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Vasallo Andrés v Parliament (Institutional law — Petitions Committee of the Parliament — Petition concerning the disciplinary regime for public employees in Spain — Question not coming within the scope of activity of the European Union — Obligation to state reasons — Conflict of interest — Effect of posting the status of a petition on the Parliament’s Internet petitions portal)

32

2022/C 463/45

Case T-517/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Grieger v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Secondment — Commitment to reassign to a middle management post at the end of the secondment — Request to be reassigned — Interests of the service — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

33

2022/C 463/46

Case T-524/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Saure v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission correspondence with AstraZeneca and the German authorities concerning the quantity of COVID-19 vaccines and their delivery times — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — Documents having been produced in the context of court proceedings that were closed at the time of adoption of the decision refusing access to those documents — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of a third party)

33

2022/C 463/47

Case T-537/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BODY STAR — Earlier EU word mark Bodyguard — Earlier national word mark Bodyguard — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

34

2022/C 463/48

Case T-539/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative mark airframe — Absolute grounds for refusal — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

35

2022/C 463/49

Case T-572/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPAL TREE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark COPAL TREE — Earlier national figurative mark COMPAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

36

2022/C 463/50

Case T-589/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Serrano Velázquez v Parliament (Institutional law — Petitions Committee of the Parliament — Petition concerning the infringement by the Spanish authorities of EU law in the field of fundamental rights — Decision to dismiss the petition — Obligation to state reasons)

36

2022/C 463/51

Case T-599/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (Body-Star) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Body-Star — Earlier EU word mark Bodyguard — Relative ground for refusal — Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation)

37

2022/C 463/52

Case T-618/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — WV v CdT (Civil service — Temporary agents — Sick leave — Unjustified absences — Termination of contract without notice — Article 16 of the CEOS — Article 48(b) of the CEOS — Liability)

37

2022/C 463/53

Case T-652/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a coupling for connecting refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment to a motor vehicle — Grounds for invalidity — Novelty — Individual character — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002 — Scope of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Earlier design produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(i), (v) and (vi) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002)

38

2022/C 463/54

Case T-656/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS — Earlier EU figurative mark HCapital — Relative ground for refusal — Relevant public — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

39

2022/C 463/55

Case T-663/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Zegers v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Retirement pension — Transfer of national pension rights — Condition requiring acquisition before entry into the service of the European Union — Recognition by the national authority of a period after entry into the service of the European Union)

39

2022/C 463/56

Case T-696/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Les Bordes Golf International v EUIPO — Mast-Jägermeister (LES BORDES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark LES BORDES — Earlier international figurative mark consisting of inter alia a stag’s head — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

40

2022/C 463/57

Case T-752/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Associação do Socorro e Amparo v EUIPO — De Bragança (quis ut Deus) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark quis ut Deus — Lack of genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

40

2022/C 463/58

Case T-802/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — just-organic.com v EUIPO (JUST ORGANIC) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark JUST ORGANIC — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

41

2022/C 463/59

Case T-58/22: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Labaš v EUIPO (FRESH) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark FRESH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

42

2022/C 463/60

Case T-738/18 RENV: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Dragnea v Commission (External investigations conducted by OLAF — Refusal of access to the OLAF investigation file — Withdrawal and replacement of the contested measure — Action now devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

42

2022/C 463/61

Case T-517/19 INTP: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Homoki v Commission (Interpretation of a judgment — Inadmissiblity)

43

2022/C 463/62

Case T-45/20: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — KRBL v EUIPO — P.K. Overseas (INDIA SALAM Pure Basmati Rice) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Expiry of the international registration of the mark applied for — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

43

2022/C 463/63

Joined Cases T-101/21 and T-213/21: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Primagra and Mlékárna Hlinsko v Commission (Actions for annulment — European Structural and Investment Funds — ERDF — Cohesion Fund — ESF — Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 — Letter concerning the follow-up of recommendations set out by the Commission in its audit of alleged conflicts of interest — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

44

2022/C 463/64

Case T-514/21: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Associazione Terra Mia Amici No Tap v EIB (Action for failure to act — Environment — Financing of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline — Resolution of the Board of Directors of the EIB approving the financing — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for internal review — Answer given after the action was brought — Application for an injunction — Lack of jurisdiction — Plea of inadmissibility — No need to adjudicate)

44

2022/C 463/65

Case T-518/21: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2022 — European Paper Packaging Alliance v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Commission Guidelines on single-use plastic products — Directive (EU) 2019/904 — Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

45

2022/C 463/66

Case T-624/21: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2022 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran — Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Prohibition of reformatio in pejus — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

46

2022/C 463/67

Case T-653/21: Order of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — Callaway v Commission (Action for annulment — Common agricultural policy — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Plant varieties — Producer of the hemp variety Finola — Areas cultivated in Poland — Hemp varieties eligible for financial support under the common agricultural policy — Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content — Authorisation given to Poland to prohibit the marketing of the Finola variety in its territory — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility)

46

2022/C 463/68

Case T-697/21: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — FC v EUAA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Disciplinary proceedings — Refusal of request to stay disciplinary proceedings pending judgments of the General Court in related cases — Delivery of judgments of the General Court in the related pending cases — No need to adjudicate)

47

2022/C 463/69

Case T-788/21: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2022 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission (Action for annulment — Commercial policy — Dumping — Imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Independent importer — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

48

2022/C 463/70

Case T-1/22: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in China — Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Importer — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

48

2022/C 463/71

Case T-41/22: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2022 — Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament (Action for annulment — Parliament resolution on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

49

2022/C 463/72

Case T-53/22: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Collard v ID (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group — Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate)

49

2022/C 463/73

Case T-54/22: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Rivière v ID (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group — Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate)

50

2022/C 463/74

Case T-101/22: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2022 — OG and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/503 — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 — Regulation (EU) 2021/953 — EU Digital COVID Certificate — Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

51

2022/C 463/75

Case T-103/22: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2022 — ON v Commission (Action for annulment — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 — Regulation (EU) 2021/953 — EU Digital COVID Certificate — Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

51

2022/C 463/76

Case T-134/22: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2022 — OO v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance reduced by half — Salary statement — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

52

2022/C 463/77

Case T-165/22: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Saure v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Refusal to grant access — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility)

52

2022/C 463/78

Case T-281/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Xpand Consortium and Others v Commission (Interim relief — Public supply contracts — Provision of Development, Implementation, Maintenance/Operations, Advice and Consultancy Services in Accounting/Finance and Financial IT Systems — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

53

2022/C 463/79

Case T-416/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 October 2022 — Fresenius Kabi Austria and Others v Commission (Interim relief — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing the active substance hydroxyethyl starch (HES), solutions for infusion — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

53

2022/C 463/80

Case T-581/22: Action brought on 19 September 2022 — ECE Group v EUIPO — ECE Piknik Ürünleri Plastik ve Kömür Üretim Ithalat Ihracat (ECE QUALITY OF LIFE)

54

2022/C 463/81

Case T-593/22: Action brought on 23 September 2022 — RM v Parliament

RM

Parliament

55

2022/C 463/82

Case T-630/22: Action brought on 10 October 2022 — Topper Argentina v EUIPO — Ningbo Xiangxinli Network Technology (wetoper)

56

2022/C 463/83

Case T-631/22: Action brought on 11 October 2022 — Beijing Unicorn Technology v EUIPO — WD Plus (Device of a circle with two sharp points)

56

2022/C 463/84

Case T-639/22: Action brought on 12 October 2022 — VF International v EUIPO — Super Brand Licencing (GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY EXPEDITION)

57

2022/C 463/85

Case T-645/22: Action brought on 15 October 2022 — C. & S. v EUIPO — Scuderia AlphaTauri (CS jeans your best fashion partner)

58

2022/C 463/86

Case T-646/22: Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — e-bility (Scooter)

58

2022/C 463/87

Case T-647/22: Action brought on 17 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Shoes)

59

2022/C 463/88

Case T-649/22: Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Shammout v Council

60

2022/C 463/89

Case T-653/22: Action brought on 19 October 2022 — Silex v Commission

60

2022/C 463/90

Case T-335/20: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2022 — Czech Republic v Commission

61

2022/C 463/91

Case T-11/22: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET)

61

2022/C 463/92

Case T-138/22: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — HCP v EUIPO — Timm Health Care (PYLOMED)

62

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/1

---

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

(2022/C 463/01)

Last publication

OJ C 451, 28.11.2022

Past publications

OJ C 441, 21.11.2022

OJ C 432, 14.11.2022

OJ C 424, 7.11.2022

OJ C 418, 31.10.2022

OJ C 408, 24.10.2022

OJ C 398, 17.10.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — L.F. v SCRL

(Case C-344/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Establishment of a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief - Internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting any manifestation, in the workplace, of religious, philosophical or political belief - Prohibition including words, clothing, or any other means of manifesting those beliefs - Wearing of an item of religious clothing)

(2022/C 463/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.F.

Defendant: SCRL

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1 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 meaning that the words ‘religion or belief’ contained therein constitute a single ground of discrimination, covering both religious belief and philosophical or spiritual belief. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1 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 meaning that the words ‘religion or belief’ contained therein constitute a single ground of discrimination, covering both religious belief and philosophical or spiritual belief.

| 2. | Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of an undertaking’s terms of employment which prohibits workers from manifesting, through words, through clothing, or in any other way, their religious or philosophical beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, does not constitute, with regard to workers who intend to exercise their freedom of religion and conscience through the visible wearing of a sign or an item of clothing with religious connotations, direct discrimination ‘on the [ground] of religion or belief’ for the purposes of that directive, provided that that provision is applied in a general and undifferentiated way. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of an undertaking’s terms of employment which prohibits workers from manifesting, through words, through clothing, or in any other way, their religious or philosophical beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, does not constitute, with regard to workers who intend to exercise their freedom of religion and conscience through the visible wearing of a sign or an item of clothing with religious connotations, direct discrimination ‘on the [ground] of religion or belief’ for the purposes of that directive, provided that that provision is applied in a general and undifferentiated way.

| 3. | Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation, which are intended to ensure the transposition of that directive into national law and which are construed as meaning that religious belief and philosophical belief constitute two separate grounds of discrimination, from being taken into account as ‘provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment than those laid down in [that directive]’ for the purposes of Article 8(1) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation, which are intended to ensure the transposition of that directive into national law and which are construed as meaning that religious belief and philosophical belief constitute two separate grounds of discrimination, from being taken into account as ‘provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment than those laid down in [that directive]’ for the purposes of Article 8(1) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — M2Beauté Cosmetics GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-616/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 1(2)(b) - Concept of ‘medicinal product by function’ - No scientific study - Scientific knowledge on a structural analogue - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Cosmetic product - Specific beneficial effects on human health - Direct or indirect beneficial effects - Positive effects on appearance)

(2022/C 463/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M2Beauté Cosmetics GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2)(b) of 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 amended by Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 as regards pharmacovigilance,
  must be interpreted as meaning that a national authority may, for the purpose of classifying a product as a ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of that provision, establish the pharmacological properties of that product by relying on scientific knowledge relating to a structural analogue of that substance, where no scientific study of the substance of which that product consists is available, if the degree of analogy is such that it may be assumed on the basis of an objective scientific assessment that a substance present in a product with a given concentration has the same properties as an existing substance for which the required studies are available. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2)(b) of 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 amended by Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 as regards pharmacovigilance,

must be interpreted as meaning that a national authority may, for the purpose of classifying a product as a ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of that provision, establish the pharmacological properties of that product by relying on scientific knowledge relating to a structural analogue of that substance, where no scientific study of the substance of which that product consists is available, if the degree of analogy is such that it may be assumed on the basis of an objective scientific assessment that a substance present in a product with a given concentration has the same properties as an existing substance for which the required studies are available.

| 2. | Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2010/84,
  must be interpreted as meaning that a product which modifies physiological functions may be classified as a ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of that provision, only if it has specific health-promoting effects. In that regard, an improvement in appearance, which gives rise to an indirect benefit through an increase in self-esteem or well-being, is sufficient where it permits the treatment of a recognised pathological condition. By contrast, a product which improves appearance without having harmful properties and which has no beneficial effects on health cannot be classified as a ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2010/84,

must be interpreted as meaning that a product which modifies physiological functions may be classified as a ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of that provision, only if it has specific health-promoting effects. In that regard, an improvement in appearance, which gives rise to an indirect benefit through an increase in self-esteem or well-being, is sufficient where it permits the treatment of a recognised pathological condition. By contrast, a product which improves appearance without having harmful properties and which has no beneficial effects on health cannot be classified as a ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Gmina Wieliszew v Syndyk masy upadłości Spółdzielczego Banku Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa w Wołominie w upadłości likwidacyjnej

(Case C-698/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural Funds - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - European Union funding - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Grant agreement - Funds paid to a beneficiary into an account in an insolvent bank - National legislation not excluding those funds from the insolvency estate of that bank)

(2022/C 463/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina Wieliszew

Defendant: Syndyk masy upadłości Spółdzielczego Banku Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa w Wołominie w upadłości likwidacyjnej

intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(5) and Articles 3, 4, 57, 70 and 80 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, Articles 11, 54, 56 and 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, and Article 2(i), Articles 3 and 4, and Article 72(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, first, does not enable an entity that has received funds in the framework of programmes co-financed by the EU budget, where those funds have been paid into an account held at a bank which has subsequently been declared insolvent, to secure the exclusion of those funds from the insolvency estate of that bank, and, second, does not prescribe the exclusion of those funds from that insolvency estate.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v X, Y v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

(Case C-713/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 11(3)(a) and (e) - Person residing in one Member State and employed in another Member State - Employment contract or contracts entered into with a single temporary employment agency - Temporary work assignments - Intervening periods - Determination of the legislation applicable during intervening periods between temporary work assignments - Termination of the employment relationship)

(2022/C 463/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank, Y

Defendants: X, Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(3)(a) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems

must be interpreted as meaning that a person residing in a Member State who carries out, through a temporary employment agency established in another Member State, temporary work assignments in the territory of that other Member State is to be subject, during the intervening periods between those temporary work assignments, to the national legislation of the Member State in which he or she resides, provided that, by reason of the temporary contract, the employment relationship ceases during those periods.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — MC v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-1/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Measures to ensure the correct collection of VAT - Article 325(1) TFEU - Obligation to counter illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union - VAT debts of a taxable legal person - National legislation which provides for the joint and several liability of the non-taxable manager of the legal person - Transfers made in bad faith by the manager - Depletion of the legal person’s assets leading to insolvency - Failure to pay the amounts of VAT payable by the legal person within the prescribed time limits - Default interest - Proportionality)

(2022/C 463/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MC

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principle of proportionality
  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for a system of joint and several liability for a legal person’s value added tax (VAT) debts in the following circumstances:






  — | the person held jointly and severally liable is a manager or member of an executive body of the legal person; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principle of proportionality

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for a system of joint and several liability for a legal person’s value added tax (VAT) debts in the following circumstances:

—

the person held jointly and severally liable is a manager or member of an executive body of the legal person;

| — | the person held jointly and severally liable made, in bad faith, payments from the legal person’s assets which could be characterised as a hidden distribution of profits or dividends, or transferred those assets free of charge or at a price significantly lower than the market price; |
| --- | --- |

—

the person held jointly and severally liable made, in bad faith, payments from the legal person’s assets which could be characterised as a hidden distribution of profits or dividends, or transferred those assets free of charge or at a price significantly lower than the market price;

| — | the acts carried out in bad faith had the effect of rendering the legal person unable to pay all or part of the VAT for which it is liable; |
| --- | --- |

—

the acts carried out in bad faith had the effect of rendering the legal person unable to pay all or part of the VAT for which it is liable;

| — | the joint and several liability is limited to the amount by which the legal person’s assets were depleted as a result of the acts carried out in bad faith; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the joint and several liability is limited to the amount by which the legal person’s assets were depleted as a result of the acts carried out in bad faith; and

| — | that joint and several liability is incurred only in the alternative, where it proves impossible to recover from the legal person the amounts of VAT payable. |
| --- | --- |

—

that joint and several liability is incurred only in the alternative, where it proves impossible to recover from the legal person the amounts of VAT payable.

| 2. | Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 and the principle of proportionality
  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for a system of joint and several liability, such as that described in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment, which extends to default interest payable by the legal person for failure to pay VAT within the mandatory time limits laid down by that directive on account of acts committed in bad faith by the person designated as jointly and severally liable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 and the principle of proportionality

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for a system of joint and several liability, such as that described in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment, which extends to default interest payable by the legal person for failure to pay VAT within the mandatory time limits laid down by that directive on account of acts committed in bad faith by the person designated as jointly and severally liable.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Rigall Arteria Management sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A.

(Case C-64/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 7(1)(b) - Self-employed commercial agents - Transaction concluded with a third party whom the commercial agent has previously acquired as a customer - Remuneration - Whether the agent’s right to commission is mandatory or supplementary)

(2022/C 463/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rigall Arteria Management sp. z o.o. sp.k.

Defendant: Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1)(b) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents

must be interpreted as meaning that

it is possible to derogate contractually from the right which that provision confers on an independent commercial agent to receive a commission in respect of a transaction entered into, during the term of the agency contract, with a third party whom that agent previously acquired as a customer for transactions of the same kind.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa, Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘Baltijas Starptautiskā Akadēmija’ SIA (C-164/21), ‘Stockholm School of Economics in Riga’ SIA (C-318/21) v Latvijas Zinātnes padome

(Joined Cases C-164/21 and C-318/21) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Article 2(83) - Direct and unconditional reference to EU law - Admissibility of the questions - Research and development and innovation aid - Concept of ‘research and knowledge-dissemination organisation’ - Higher education establishment carrying on economic and non-economic activities - Determination of the primary goal)

(2022/C 463/08)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa, Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘Baltijas Starptautiskā Akadēmija’ SIA (C-164/21), ‘Stockholm School of Economics in Riga’ SIA (C-318/21)

Defendant: Latvijas Zinātnes padome

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(83) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU]
  must be interpreted as meaning that an entity organised under private law which carries out several activities, including research, but the majority of whose revenue comes from economic activities, such as the provision of teaching services for consideration, may be regarded as being a ‘research and knowledge-dissemination organisation’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that it can be established, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case, that its primary goal is to conduct, in complete independence, activities of fundamental research, industrial research or experimental development, possibly supplemented by activities for the dissemination of the results of those research activities, by means of teaching, publications or transfers of knowledge. In that context, such an entity cannot be required to earn a certain proportion of its revenue from its non-economic activities of research and dissemination of knowledge. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(83) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU]

must be interpreted as meaning that an entity organised under private law which carries out several activities, including research, but the majority of whose revenue comes from economic activities, such as the provision of teaching services for consideration, may be regarded as being a ‘research and knowledge-dissemination organisation’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that it can be established, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case, that its primary goal is to conduct, in complete independence, activities of fundamental research, industrial research or experimental development, possibly supplemented by activities for the dissemination of the results of those research activities, by means of teaching, publications or transfers of knowledge. In that context, such an entity cannot be required to earn a certain proportion of its revenue from its non-economic activities of research and dissemination of knowledge.

| 2. | Article 2(83) of Regulation No 651/2014
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an entity to be regarded as a ‘research and knowledge-dissemination organisation’, within the meaning of that provision, it is not necessary that that entity reinvests the revenue generated by its primary activity in that same primary activity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(83) of Regulation No 651/2014

must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an entity to be regarded as a ‘research and knowledge-dissemination organisation’, within the meaning of that provision, it is not necessary that that entity reinvests the revenue generated by its primary activity in that same primary activity.

| 3. | Article 2(83) of Regulation No 651/2014
  must be interpreted as meaning that the legal status of the shareholders and members of an entity and the possible profit-making nature of the activities carried out by them and of the objectives which they pursue do not constitute decisive criteria for the purposes of classifying that entity as a ‘research and knowledge-dissemination organisation’, within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 2(83) of Regulation No 651/2014

must be interpreted as meaning that the legal status of the shareholders and members of an entity and the possible profit-making nature of the activities carried out by them and of the objectives which they pursue do not constitute decisive criteria for the purposes of classifying that entity as a ‘research and knowledge-dissemination organisation’, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — DN v Finanzamt Österreich

(Case C-199/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 67 and 68 - Family benefits - Right to benefits under a pension - Pensioner in receipt of pensions from two Member States - Member State(s) in which that pensioner is entitled to family benefits - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Third sentence of Article 60(1) - Legislation of a Member State providing for the award of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his or her household - Failure by that parent to claim the award of those benefits - Obligation to take into account the application submitted by the other parent - Request for the recovery of family benefits paid to the other parent - Whether permissible)

(2022/C 463/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DN

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second sentence of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person is in receipt of pensions in two Member States, that person is entitled to family benefits in accordance with the legislation of those two Member States. Where the receipt of such benefits in one of those Member States is precluded pursuant to the national legislation, the priority rules referred to in Article 68(1) and (2) of that regulation do not apply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second sentence of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person is in receipt of pensions in two Member States, that person is entitled to family benefits in accordance with the legislation of those two Member States. Where the receipt of such benefits in one of those Member States is precluded pursuant to the national legislation, the priority rules referred to in Article 68(1) and (2) of that regulation do not apply.

| 2. | The third sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
  must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the recovery of family benefits awarded, where the parent entitled to such benefits pursuant to that legislation has not applied for them, to the other parent, whose application has been taken into account, in accordance with that provision, by the competent institution, and who in fact bears the entire cost associated with the maintenance of the child. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The third sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the recovery of family benefits awarded, where the parent entitled to such benefits pursuant to that legislation has not applied for them, to the other parent, whose application has been taken into account, in accordance with that provision, by the competent institution, and who in fact bears the entire cost associated with the maintenance of the child.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

(Case C-256/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade marks - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 124(a) and (d) - Article 128 - Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts - Action for infringement - Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the action for infringement - Outcome of the counterclaim - Autonomous nature of the counterclaim)

(2022/C 463/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KP

Defendants: TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 124(a) and (d) and Article 128 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark,

must be interpreted as meaning that an EU trade mark court hearing an action for infringement based on an EU trade mark the validity of which is challenged by means of a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity still has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of that mark, in spite of the withdrawal of the main action.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k. v Procter & Gamble International Operations SA

(Case C-355/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Article 10 - Corrective measures - Destruction of goods - Concept of ‘infringement of an intellectual property right’ - Goods bearing an EU trade mark)

(2022/C 463/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k.

Defendant: Procter & Gamble International Operations SA

Intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,

must be interpreted as:

precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law according to which a protective measure in the form of the destruction of goods may not be applied to goods which have been manufactured and to which an EU trade mark has been affixed, with the consent of the proprietor of that mark, but which were placed on the market in the European Economic Area without his or her consent.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-397/21) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Sales which are not subject to VAT - VAT unduly invoiced and paid - Liquidation of the provider - Refusal by the tax authority to refund to the customer VAT improperly paid - Principles of effectiveness, tax neutrality and non-discrimination)

(2022/C 463/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principles of effectiveness and neutrality of value added tax (VAT),
  must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person to whom another taxable person has provided a service cannot claim, directly from the tax authority, a refund of the amount corresponding to the VAT in respect of which that service provider has unduly invoiced that taxable person and which that service provider has paid to the Treasury, where it is impossible or excessively difficult to claim that amount from that service provider on account of that service provider having gone into liquidation and even though no fraud or abuse can be attributed to those two taxable persons, with the result that there is no risk of loss of tax revenue for that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principles of effectiveness and neutrality of value added tax (VAT),

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person to whom another taxable person has provided a service cannot claim, directly from the tax authority, a refund of the amount corresponding to the VAT in respect of which that service provider has unduly invoiced that taxable person and which that service provider has paid to the Treasury, where it is impossible or excessively difficult to claim that amount from that service provider on account of that service provider having gone into liquidation and even though no fraud or abuse can be attributed to those two taxable persons, with the result that there is no risk of loss of tax revenue for that Member State.

| 2. | Article 183 of Directive 2006/112, read in the light of the principle of neutrality of VAT,
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person to whom another taxable person has provided a service can claim directly from the tax authority a refund of the amount corresponding to the VAT in respect of which that service provider has unduly invoiced that taxable person and which that service provider has paid to the Treasury, that authority is obliged to pay interest on that amount where it has not made that refund within a reasonable period of time after having been requested to do so. The rules for applying interest on that amount fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member States, circumscribed by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, it being understood that the national rules relating in particular to the calculation of any interest due must not result in the taxable person being deprived of adequate compensation in respect of the loss caused by the late refund of that amount. It is for the referring court to do whatever lies within its jurisdiction to give full effect to that Article 183 by interpreting national law in conformity with EU law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 183 of Directive 2006/112, read in the light of the principle of neutrality of VAT,

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person to whom another taxable person has provided a service can claim directly from the tax authority a refund of the amount corresponding to the VAT in respect of which that service provider has unduly invoiced that taxable person and which that service provider has paid to the Treasury, that authority is obliged to pay interest on that amount where it has not made that refund within a reasonable period of time after having been requested to do so. The rules for applying interest on that amount fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member States, circumscribed by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, it being understood that the national rules relating in particular to the calculation of any interest due must not result in the taxable person being deprived of adequate compensation in respect of the loss caused by the late refund of that amount. It is for the referring court to do whatever lies within its jurisdiction to give full effect to that Article 183 by interpreting national law in conformity with EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

(Case C-405/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 3(1) and Article 8 - Criteria for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term - Significant imbalance between the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract - Requirement of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier - Possibility of ensuring a higher level of protection than that provided for in the directive)

(2022/C 463/13)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FV

Defendant: NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) and Article 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits a finding that a contractual term is unfair where it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, without, however, carrying out an examination, in such a case, of the requirement of ‘good faith’ within the meaning of Article 3(1).

---

(1)  OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen

(Case C-431/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Corporation tax - Determination of the taxable income of companies - Transactions featuring foreign elements - Obligation to provide fiscal documentation of business relations between parties with a relationship of interdependence - Estimate of the taxable income and surcharge by way of a penalty)

(2022/C 463/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Bremen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation under which, in the first place, the taxpayer is subject to an obligation to provide documentation on the nature and content of, as well as on the economic and legal bases for, prices and other terms and conditions of his, her or its cross-border business transactions, with parties with which he, she or it has a relationship of interdependence, in capital or other aspects, enabling that taxpayer or those parties to exercise a definite influence over the other, and which provides, in the second place, in the event of infringement of that obligation, not only that his, her or its taxable income in the Member State concerned is rebuttably presumed to be higher than that which has been declared, and the tax authorities may carry out an estimate to the detriment of the taxpayer, but also that a surcharge of an amount equivalent to at least 5 % and at most 10 % of the excess income determined is imposed, with a minimum amount of EUR 5 000, unless non-compliance with that obligation is excusable or if the fault involved is minor.

---

(1)  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Liberty Lines SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-437/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Articles 1 and 4 - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 1 - Direct award of public service contracts - Public services for high-speed maritime passenger transport - Treatment like railway transport services provided by sea)

(2022/C 463/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Liberty Lines SpA

Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Intervening parties: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA, Bluferries Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), in particular Article 1(1) and Article 4(1) thereof,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation whose purpose is to treat maritime transport services like rail transport services, where the effect of such treatment is to exclude the service in question from the application of the rules on public procurement applicable to it.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — NY v Herios SARL

(Case C-593/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17(2)(a) - Self-employed commercial agents - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - Compensation of the agent - Goodwill indemnity - Sub-agency - Right of the subagent to a proportion of the goodwill indemnity payable to the main agent corresponding to the customers brought by the subagent)

(2022/C 463/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NY

Defendant: Herios SARL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents,

must be interpreted as meaning that the goodwill indemnity which has been paid by the principal to the main agent in respect of the customer base brought by the subagent is capable of constituting, for the main agent, a substantial benefit. However, the payment of a goodwill indemnity to the subagent may be regarded as not being equitable, within the meaning of that provision, where the subagent continues his or her commercial agency business in relation to the same clients and for the same products but in the context of a direct relationship with the main principal, which replaced the main agent that had previously engaged him or her.

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/14

---

Appeal brought on 8 February 2022 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2021 in Case T-719/21, Correia de Matos v Commission

(Case C-79/22 P)

(2022/C 463/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Carlos Correia de Matos (represented by: C. Correia de Matos, advogado)

Other party: European Commission

By order of 20 October 2022, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered Mr Carlos Correia de Matos to bear his own costs.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/14

---

Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-237/21, Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS)

(Case C-446/22 P)

(2022/C 463/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (represented by: P. Wilhelm, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 20 October 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., should bear its own costs.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2022 — SC Adient Ltd & Co. KG v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș

(Case C-533/22)

(2022/C 463/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Adient Ltd & Co. KG

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (1) and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive] (2) to be interpreted as precluding the practice of a national tax authority whereby an independent resident legal person is classified as the fixed establishment of a non-resident entity solely on the basis that the two companies belong to the same group? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (1) and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive] (2) to be interpreted as precluding the practice of a national tax authority whereby an independent resident legal person is classified as the fixed establishment of a non-resident entity solely on the basis that the two companies belong to the same group?

| 2. | Are the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 implementing [that directive] to be interpreted as precluding the practice of a national tax authority whereby it is considered, by reference only to the services supplied to a non-resident entity by a resident legal person, that a fixed establishment of a non-resident entity exists within the territory of a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 implementing [that directive] to be interpreted as precluding the practice of a national tax authority whereby it is considered, by reference only to the services supplied to a non-resident entity by a resident legal person, that a fixed establishment of a non-resident entity exists within the territory of a Member State?

| 3. | Are the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive] to be interpreted as precluding tax legislation and the practice of a national tax authority whereby it is considered that a fixed establishment of a non-resident entity exists within the territory of a Member State, given that that fixed establishment supplies only goods and not services? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive] to be interpreted as precluding tax legislation and the practice of a national tax authority whereby it is considered that a fixed establishment of a non-resident entity exists within the territory of a Member State, given that that fixed establishment supplies only goods and not services?

| 4. | Where a non-resident person has, within the territory of a Member State, human and technical resources within a resident legal person which are used to ensure the supply of services whereby goods are manufactured — goods which are to be supplied by the non-resident entity — are the provisions of Article 192a(b) of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of Article 11 and Article 53(2) of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive] to be interpreted as meaning that those manufacturing services supplied by means of the technical and human resources of the non-resident legal person are: (i) services received by the non-resident legal person from the resident person by means of those human and technical resources, or, as the case may be, (ii) services provided by the non-resident legal person itself by means of those human and technical resources? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Where a non-resident person has, within the territory of a Member State, human and technical resources within a resident legal person which are used to ensure the supply of services whereby goods are manufactured — goods which are to be supplied by the non-resident entity — are the provisions of Article 192a(b) of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of Article 11 and Article 53(2) of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive] to be interpreted as meaning that those manufacturing services supplied by means of the technical and human resources of the non-resident legal person are: (i) services received by the non-resident legal person from the resident person by means of those human and technical resources, or, as the case may be, (ii) services provided by the non-resident legal person itself by means of those human and technical resources?

| 5. | Depending on the answer to Question 4, how is the place of supply of services to be determined with reference to the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive]? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Depending on the answer to Question 4, how is the place of supply of services to be determined with reference to the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive]?

| 6. | In the light of Article 53(2) of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax], should activities linked to the treatment of goods, such as taking delivery, recording inventory, placing orders with suppliers, providing storage areas, managing inventory in the IT system, processing customer orders, indicating the address on transport documents and invoices, providing quality control support, and so on, be disregarded when determining the existence of a fixed establishment, given that they are ancillary administrative activities which are strictly necessary for the manufacture of the goods? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In the light of Article 53(2) of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax], should activities linked to the treatment of goods, such as taking delivery, recording inventory, placing orders with suppliers, providing storage areas, managing inventory in the IT system, processing customer orders, indicating the address on transport documents and invoices, providing quality control support, and so on, be disregarded when determining the existence of a fixed establishment, given that they are ancillary administrative activities which are strictly necessary for the manufacture of the goods?

| 7. | In view of the principles relating to the place of taxation as the place where final consumption takes place, is it relevant for determining the place of supply of the manufacturing services that the goods resulting from those services are mostly (intended to be) sold outside Romania, while those sold in Romania are subject to VAT, and therefore the result of the services is not ‘consumed’ in Romania or, if it is ‘consumed’ in Romania, it is subject to VAT? |
| --- | --- |

7.

In view of the principles relating to the place of taxation as the place where final consumption takes place, is it relevant for determining the place of supply of the manufacturing services that the goods resulting from those services are mostly (intended to be) sold outside Romania, while those sold in Romania are subject to VAT, and therefore the result of the services is not ‘consumed’ in Romania or, if it is ‘consumed’ in Romania, it is subject to VAT?

| 8. | Where the technical and human resources of the fixed establishment receiving the services are virtually the same as those of the provider through whom the services are actually performed, is there still a supply of services for the purposes of Article 2(1)(c) of [Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax]? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Where the technical and human resources of the fixed establishment receiving the services are virtually the same as those of the provider through whom the services are actually performed, is there still a supply of services for the purposes of Article 2(1)(c) of [Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax]?

---

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

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg (Netherlands) lodged on 11 August 2022 — SN and Others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-540/22)

(2022/C 463/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SN, AS, RA, AA, OK, SD, IS, YZ, VK, VM, SP, OZ, OK, MM, PS, OP, ST, OO, ST, OS, AB, AT, PM, IY, SO, HY, VK, VL, DT, DM, DK, OK, MK, VM, VM, AY, PD, SS, OH, AZ, RS, VD, AI, OK

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the free movement of services guaranteed by Articles 56 and 57 TFEU include a right derived therefrom of residence in a Member State for third-country workers who may be employed in that Member State by a service provider established in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the free movement of services guaranteed by Articles 56 and 57 TFEU include a right derived therefrom of residence in a Member State for third-country workers who may be employed in that Member State by a service provider established in another Member State?

| 2. | If not, where the duration of the provision of services exceeds three months, does Article 56 TFEU preclude an application having to be made for a residence permit for each individual worker in addition to a simple obligation to declare on the part of the service provider? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, where the duration of the provision of services exceeds three months, does Article 56 TFEU preclude an application having to be made for a residence permit for each individual worker in addition to a simple obligation to declare on the part of the service provider?

| 3. | If not, does Article 56 TFEU preclude






  a. | a provision of national law that the period of validity of such a residence permit may not exceed two years, irrespective of the duration of the provision of services? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If not, does Article 56 TFEU preclude

a.

a provision of national law that the period of validity of such a residence permit may not exceed two years, irrespective of the duration of the provision of services?

| b. | the limitation of the period of validity of such a residence permit to the period of validity of the work and residence permit in the Member State in which the service provider is established? |
| --- | --- |

b.

the limitation of the period of validity of such a residence permit to the period of validity of the work and residence permit in the Member State in which the service provider is established?

| c. | charging a fee per (renewal) application which is equal to the fee payable for a regular work permit for a third-country national, but five times higher than the fee payable for proof of lawful residence for a Union citizen? |
| --- | --- |

c.

charging a fee per (renewal) application which is equal to the fee payable for a regular work permit for a third-country national, but five times higher than the fee payable for proof of lawful residence for a Union citizen?

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 18 August 2022 — X v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

(Case C-549/22)

(2022/C 463/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 68(4) of the Association Agreement (1) be interpreted as applying to a survivor of a deceased worker who resides in Algeria and who wishes to export her survivors’ benefit to Algeria?
  If so, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 68(4) of the Association Agreement (1) be interpreted as applying to a survivor of a deceased worker who resides in Algeria and who wishes to export her survivors’ benefit to Algeria?

If so,

| 2. | Must Article 68(4) of the Association Agreement, having regard to its wording and to its purpose and nature, be interpreted as having direct effect, so that persons to whom that provision applies are entitled to rely on it directly before the Member States’ courts to have rules of national law which are contrary to it disapplied?
  If so, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 68(4) of the Association Agreement, having regard to its wording and to its purpose and nature, be interpreted as having direct effect, so that persons to whom that provision applies are entitled to rely on it directly before the Member States’ courts to have rules of national law which are contrary to it disapplied?

If so,

| 3. | Must Article 68(4) of the Association Agreement be interpreted as precluding the application of the country-of-residence principle, as referred to in Article 17(3) of the Algemene nabestaandenwet (General Law on Survivors), which results in a restriction on the export of the survivors’ benefit to Algeria? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 68(4) of the Association Agreement be interpreted as precluding the application of the country-of-residence principle, as referred to in Article 17(3) of the Algemene nabestaandenwet (General Law on Survivors), which results in a restriction on the export of the survivors’ benefit to Algeria?

---

(1)  Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part (OJ 2005 L 265, p. 2).

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/17

---

Appeal brought on 26 August 2022 by Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2022 in Case T-334/21 Mendes de Almeida v Council

(Case C-572/22 P)

(2022/C 463/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida (represented by: R. Leandro Vasconcelos, P. Almeida Sande and M. Tavares, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

By order of 16 September 2022, the President of the Court ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 September 2022 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-585/22)

(2022/C 463/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and/or 63 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the interest on a loan debt contracted with an entity related to the taxable person, being a debt connected with the acquisition or extension of an interest in an entity which, following that acquisition or extension, is a related entity, is not deductible when determining the profits of the taxable person because the debt concerned must be categorised as (part of) a wholly artificial arrangement, regardless of whether the debt concerned, viewed in isolation, was contracted at arm’s length? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and/or 63 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the interest on a loan debt contracted with an entity related to the taxable person, being a debt connected with the acquisition or extension of an interest in an entity which, following that acquisition or extension, is a related entity, is not deductible when determining the profits of the taxable person because the debt concerned must be categorised as (part of) a wholly artificial arrangement, regardless of whether the debt concerned, viewed in isolation, was contracted at arm’s length?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and/or 63 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the deduction of the interest on a loan debt contracted with an entity related to the taxable person and regarded as (part of) a wholly artificial arrangement, being a debt connected with the acquisition or extension of an interest in an entity which, following that acquisition or extension, is a related entity, is disallowed in full when determining the profits of the taxable person, even where that interest in itself does not exceed the amount that would have been agreed upon between companies which are independent of one another? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and/or 63 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the deduction of the interest on a loan debt contracted with an entity related to the taxable person and regarded as (part of) a wholly artificial arrangement, being a debt connected with the acquisition or extension of an interest in an entity which, following that acquisition or extension, is a related entity, is disallowed in full when determining the profits of the taxable person, even where that interest in itself does not exceed the amount that would have been agreed upon between companies which are independent of one another?

| 3. | For the purpose of answering questions 1 and/or 2, does it make any difference whether the relevant acquisition or extension of the interest relates (a) to an entity that was already an entity related to the taxable person prior to that acquisition or extension, or (b) to an entity that becomes an entity related to the taxpayer only after such acquisition or extension? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purpose of answering questions 1 and/or 2, does it make any difference whether the relevant acquisition or extension of the interest relates (a) to an entity that was already an entity related to the taxable person prior to that acquisition or extension, or (b) to an entity that becomes an entity related to the taxpayer only after such acquisition or extension?

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wesel (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2022 — AT, BT v PS GbR, VG, MB, DH, WB, GS

(Case C-590/22)

(2022/C 463/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wesel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AT, BT

Defendants: PS GbR, VG, MB, DH, WB, GS

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it sufficient for the establishment of a claim for compensation under Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation; ‘the GDPR’) that a provision of the GDPR serving to protect the claimant has been infringed or is it necessary that a further adverse effect on the claimant has occurred, beyond the infringement of the provision as such? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it sufficient for the establishment of a claim for compensation under Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation; ‘the GDPR’) that a provision of the GDPR serving to protect the claimant has been infringed or is it necessary that a further adverse effect on the claimant has occurred, beyond the infringement of the provision as such?

| 2. | Under EU law, does the establishment of a claim for compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR require an adverse effect of a certain magnitude? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under EU law, does the establishment of a claim for compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR require an adverse effect of a certain magnitude?

| 3. | In particular, is it sufficient for the establishment of a claim for compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR that the claimant fears that his or her personal data have come into the hands of third parties as a result of infringements of provisions of the GDPR, even though that circumstance cannot be positively established? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In particular, is it sufficient for the establishment of a claim for compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR that the claimant fears that his or her personal data have come into the hands of third parties as a result of infringements of provisions of the GDPR, even though that circumstance cannot be positively established?

| 4. | Is it in conformity with EU law for the national court to apply mutatis mutandis the criteria of the second sentence of Article 83(2) of the GDPR — which, according to the wording, apply only to administrative fines — when assessing compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it in conformity with EU law for the national court to apply mutatis mutandis the criteria of the second sentence of Article 83(2) of the GDPR — which, according to the wording, apply only to administrative fines — when assessing compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR?

| 5. | Must the amount of a claim for compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR also be assessed by reference to the fact that the amount of the claim awarded serves to have a deterrent effect and/or to prevent the ‘commercialisation’ (calculated acceptance of administrative fines/compensation payments) of infringements? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must the amount of a claim for compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR also be assessed by reference to the fact that the amount of the claim awarded serves to have a deterrent effect and/or to prevent the ‘commercialisation’ (calculated acceptance of administrative fines/compensation payments) of infringements?

| 6. | Is it in conformity with EU law, when assessing the amount of a claim for compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR, to take into account simultaneous infringements of national provisions which have as their purpose the protection of personal data but which are not delegated or implementing acts adopted in accordance with that regulation or Member State laws which specify provisions of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is it in conformity with EU law, when assessing the amount of a claim for compensation for non-material damage under Article 82(1) of the GDPR, to take into account simultaneous infringements of national provisions which have as their purpose the protection of personal data but which are not delegated or implementing acts adopted in accordance with that regulation or Member State laws which specify provisions of that regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 15 September 2022 — Mr J. O. v Kreis Gütersloh

(Case C-596/22)

(2022/C 463/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mr J. O.

Defendant: Kreis Gütersloh

Intervener: Mr W. D.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and points 17(a) and 24 of Annex I to that directive, or Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3) and point 1(e) of Annex II and points 1(b) and 3(g) of Annex III to that directive be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which, where an installation for the intensive rearing of broilers is added to an already authorised installation of that kind, those installations, as cumulative projects, must undergo an environmental impact assessment or a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92 only if they are linked by joint operational or structural facilities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and points 17(a) and 24 of Annex I to that directive, or Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3) and point 1(e) of Annex II and points 1(b) and 3(g) of Annex III to that directive be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which, where an installation for the intensive rearing of broilers is added to an already authorised installation of that kind, those installations, as cumulative projects, must undergo an environmental impact assessment or a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92 only if they are linked by joint operational or structural facilities?

| 2. | Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and points 17(a) and 24 of Annex I to that directive, be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which, where






  a. | an installation for the intensive rearing of broilers is added to an already authorised installation of that kind, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and points 17(a) and 24 of Annex I to that directive, be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which, where

a.

an installation for the intensive rearing of broilers is added to an already authorised installation of that kind,

| b. | the new installation (29 990 places) and the already authorised installation (84 000 places) together exceed the threshold of 85 000 places for broilers referred to in point 17(a) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92, |
| --- | --- |

b.

the new installation (29 990 places) and the already authorised installation (84 000 places) together exceed the threshold of 85 000 places for broilers referred to in point 17(a) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92,

| c. | the new installation falls below both the national threshold for a site-specific preliminary assessment under national law (30 000 places) and the national threshold for a general preliminary assessment under national law (40 000 places), and |
| --- | --- |

c.

the new installation falls below both the national threshold for a site-specific preliminary assessment under national law (30 000 places) and the national threshold for a general preliminary assessment under national law (40 000 places), and

| d. | although no environmental impact assessment was carried out for the already authorised installation, a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92 (in the form of a general preliminary assessment under national law) concluded that no environmental impact assessment was required for the already authorised installation,
  an environmental impact assessment must be carried out for the new installation only if a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92 (in the form of a general preliminary assessment under national law) reveals that the addition of the new installation is likely to have significant adverse or other significant adverse effects on the environment? |
| --- | --- |

d.

although no environmental impact assessment was carried out for the already authorised installation, a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92 (in the form of a general preliminary assessment under national law) concluded that no environmental impact assessment was required for the already authorised installation,

an environmental impact assessment must be carried out for the new installation only if a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92 (in the form of a general preliminary assessment under national law) reveals that the addition of the new installation is likely to have significant adverse or other significant adverse effects on the environment?

| 3. | Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3) and point 1(e) of Annex II to that directive, be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides that the obligation to carry out a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of that directive (in the form of a site-specific preliminary assessment under national law) as to whether a project for the construction and operation of an installation for the intensive rearing of broilers must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment is conditional solely on that installation comprising 30 000 or more places? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3) and point 1(e) of Annex II to that directive, be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides that the obligation to carry out a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of that directive (in the form of a site-specific preliminary assessment under national law) as to whether a project for the construction and operation of an installation for the intensive rearing of broilers must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment is conditional solely on that installation comprising 30 000 or more places?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1) as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 124, p. 1).

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 September 2022 — Società Italiana Imprese Balneari Srl v Comune di Rosignano Marittimo and Others

(Case C-598/22)

(2022/C 463/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Società Italiana Imprese Balneari Srl

Respondents: Comune di Rosignano Marittimo, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia del demanio — Direzione regionale Toscana e Umbria, Regione Toscana

Question referred

Do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles arising from the Laezza judgment (C-375/14), where applicable, preclude the interpretation of a national provision such as Article 49 [of the Italian Shipping Code] as meaning that it results in the transfer without consideration and without compensation, by the concessionaire on expiry of the concession, when that concession has been renewed on an uninterrupted basis, where applicable by virtue of a new measure, of the building works constructed on the State-owned land forming part of the complex of assets organised for the operation of the resort enterprise, since that effect of immediate forfeiture could constitute a restriction that goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective actually pursued by the national legislature and is therefore disproportionate to the aim?

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/20

---

Action brought on 17 October 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-651/22)

(2022/C 463/27)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, by 6 February 2018 at the latest, the measures necessary to comply in full with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (1) of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, and by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, by 6 February 2018 at the latest, the measures necessary to comply in full with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (1) of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, and by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive.

| — | order the Portuguese Republic pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 should have been transposed by 6 February 2018, and the Member States had to notify the Commission of the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopted in the field covered by that directive.

The deadline for transposition of the directive has already expired and, to date, the Commission has not been notified of its transposition in full, nor does it have any other information to enable it to conclude that the Portuguese Republic complied with the obligation to apply the necessary measures. In particular, the Portuguese Republic has still not established a national action plan concerning the long-term risks from radon exposures in dwellings, buildings with public access and workplaces for any source of radon ingress, whether from soil, building materials or water.

The Commission maintains that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply in full with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013, transposing it into national law, and by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 13, p. 1.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/21

---

Action brought on 21 October 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-668/22)

(2022/C 463/28)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Sasinowska, G. Wilms and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to achieve certain results resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 (1) of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to achieve certain results resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 (1) of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009;

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

—

order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, ATS providers are to ensure that ATS units providing air traffic services within the airspace referred to in Article 1(3) of that regulation are capable of providing and operating data link services as defined in Annex II to that regulation. The data services defined in Annex II are: data link initiation capability (DLIC), ATC communication management (ACM) service, ATC clearance and information (ACL) service and ATC microphone control (AMC) service. Contrary to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, the ATS provider entrusted by the Slovak Republic has not ensured that ATS units are capable of providing and operating the data link services defined in Annex II to that regulation. The Slovak Republic, within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the EU Treaty, had not, at the time of the expiry of the time limit in its reasoned opinion, taken the necessary measures to ensure that the ATS provider entrusted by it complies with the requirements of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 29/2009.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 13, p. 3.

---

General Court

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament

(Case T-421/17 RENV) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document relating to a decision refusing a third party full access to trilogue tables relating to the proposal for a regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA - Refusal to grant access - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception for the protection of court proceedings and legal advice)

(2022/C 463/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Päivi Leino-Sandberg (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and S. Schubert, lawyers)

Defendant): European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and J.C. Puffer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, H. Eklinder, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision A(2016) 15112 of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017 refusing to grant her access to Decision A(2015) 4931 of the Parliament of 8 July 2015 addressed to Mr Emilio De Capitani.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision A(2016) 15112 of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017 refusing to grant Ms Päivi Leino-Sandberg access to Decision A(2015) 4931 of the Parliament of 8 July 2015 addressed to Mr Emilio De Capitani; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision A(2016) 15112 of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017 refusing to grant Ms Päivi Leino-Sandberg access to Decision A(2015) 4931 of the Parliament of 8 July 2015 addressed to Mr Emilio De Capitani;

| 2. | Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Päivi Leino-Sandberg; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Päivi Leino-Sandberg;

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

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 –Corneli v ECB

(Case T-502/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions - Early intervention measures - Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Action for annulment - Action brought by a shareholder - Standing to bring proceedings - Interest separate from that of the bank - Admissibility - Error of law in the determination of the legal basis - Interpretation of national law by the EU Courts in conformity with EU law - Limit - Prohibition on interpreting national law contra legem)

(2022/C 463/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Francesca Corneli (Velletri, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, L. Boggio and F. Ferraro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, D. Triantafyllou and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration, as well as of any consequent or subsequent act, including, inter alia, ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the duration of the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the duration of the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Central Bank (ECB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Francesca Corneli; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Central Bank (ECB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Francesca Corneli;

| 4. | Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Malacalza Investimenti v ECB

(Case T-552/19 OP) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - ECB’s decision to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information protected as such under EU law - General presumption of confidentiality - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person, including intellectual property - Meaning of confidential information - Obligation to state reasons - Opposition)

(2022/C 463/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant in the main proceedings: Malacalza Investimenti Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: P. Ghiglione, E. De Giorgi, L. Amicarelli and S. Casini, lawyers)

Defendant in the main proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: A. Riso, F. von Lindeiner and M. Van Hoecke, acting as Agents, and by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and O. Pollicino, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 166(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the European Central Bank (ECB) applies to have set aside the judgment of 25 June 2020, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB (T-552/19, EU:T:2020:294), which annulled ECB Decision LS/LdG/19/185 of 12 June 2019 refusing to grant access to the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and other documents relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application to have set aside the judgment of 25 June 2020, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB, T-552/19, EU:T:2020:294, delivered by default, which annulled the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 refusing access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and to other documents relating thereto and, consequently, confirms the annulment of the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 set out in the judgment by default; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application to have set aside the judgment of 25 June 2020, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB, T-552/19, EU:T:2020:294, delivered by default, which annulled the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 refusing access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and to other documents relating thereto and, consequently, confirms the annulment of the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 set out in the judgment by default;

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

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — LAICO v Council

(Case T-627/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Error of assessment)

(2022/C 463/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Libyan African Investment Company (LAICO) (Tripoli, Libya) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment, first, of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1137 of 30 July 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2020 L 247, p. 40) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1251 of 29 July 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2021 L 272, p. 71), in so far as they maintain the applicant’s name on the list of entities set out in Annex IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2015 L 206, p. 34), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130 of 30 July 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2020 L 247, p. 14) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1241 of 29 July 2021 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (OJ 2021 L 272, p. 1), in so far as they maintain the applicant’s name on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (OJ 2016 L 12, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1137 of 30 July 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1251 of 29 July 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as they maintain the name of Libyan African Investment Company (LAICO) on the list of entities set out in Annex IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1137 of 30 July 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1251 of 29 July 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as they maintain the name of Libyan African Investment Company (LAICO) on the list of entities set out in Annex IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP;

| 2. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130 of 30 July 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1241 of 29 July 2021 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 in so far as they maintain the name of LAICO on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130 of 30 July 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1241 of 29 July 2021 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 in so far as they maintain the name of LAICO on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011;

| 3. | Orders the effects of Article 1 of Decision 2021/1251 to be maintained in respect of LAICO until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until the date of any dismissal of that appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the effects of Article 1 of Decision 2021/1251 to be maintained in respect of LAICO until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until the date of any dismissal of that appeal;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)

(Case T-711/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CMS Italy - Earlier international figurative marks representing a feline bounding towards the left and earlier international figurative mark PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the signs - Proof of reputation - Overall assessment)

(2022/C 463/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA (Alonte, Italy) (represented by: M. Salvador and R. Brogi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 September 2020 (Case R 2215/2019-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 September 2020 (Case R 2215/2019-4) as regards the oppositions based on earlier trade marks No 480 105 and No 593 987; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 September 2020 (Case R 2215/2019-4) as regards the oppositions based on earlier trade marks No 480 105 and No 593 987;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Puma SE, EUIPO and CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Puma SE, EUIPO and CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB

(Case T-761/20) (1)

(Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Exclusion from the procurement procedure - Abnormally low offer - Attempts to unduly influence the decision-making process - Failure to observe the rules on communication - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Non-contractual liability)

(2022/C 463/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Sfyri and M. Koutrouli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: I. Koepfer and J. Krumrey, acting as Agents, and by A. Rosenkötter, lawyer)

Re:

By its action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annulment of (i) the decision of the Procurement Committee of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 1 October 2020 to exclude its tenders for the three lots in the procurement procedure Provision of services and works for IT application delivery, (ii) the decision of the ECB Procurement Review Body of 9 December 2020 and (iii) all the related subsequent decisions of the ECB; second, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, it seeks compensation for the damage it allegedly suffered as a result of that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Van Walle v ECDC

(Case T-83/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - ECDC staff members - Decision not to renew a contract - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Right to be heard - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 463/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ivo Van Walle (Järfälla, Sweden) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in the first place, annulment of the decision of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 30 March 2020 not to renew his contract as a member of the temporary staff; in the second place, principally, an order that ECDC pay him retroactively the net salary of which he was deprived between the non-renewal of his contract and the date of his reinstatement and, in the alternative, an order that ECDC compensate him for the material damage that he allegedly suffered; and, in the third place, compensation for the non-material damage that he allegedly suffered following the decision not to renew his contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ivo Van Walle to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ivo Van Walle to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 26.4.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Paesen v EEAS

(Case T-88/21) (1)

(Civil service - Official - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Head of delegation - Management trial period - Final assessment report of the management trial period - Act not adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility - Re-assignment to a non-managerial post at EEAS headquarters - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Conditions for the application of Article 11 of Commission Decision C (2008) 5028/2 of 9 September 2008 on middle management staff to heads of delegation - Failure to include documents in the personal file - Interests of the service - Misuse of powers - Request for assistance - Decision rejecting the request - Liability)

(2022/C 463/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Paesen (Beersel, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

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

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of (i) the final assessment report of her management trial period, (ii) the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) dated 10 April 2020 re-assigning her to a non-managerial post and (iii) the decision of the EEAS dated 12 May 2020 rejecting her request for assistance, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by her.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Sandra Paesen to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Sandra Paesen to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Magnetec v EUIPO (Light blue)

(Case T-168/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of light blue - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Limitation of goods designated by the trade mark application - Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Requirements of clarity and precision - Article 33(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Magnetec GmbH (Langenselbold, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2021 (Case R 217/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2021 (Case R 217/2020-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2021 (Case R 217/2020-4);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Agrofert v Parliament

(Case T-174/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the investigation against the former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on the misuse of EU funds and potential conflicts of interest - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Interest in bringing proceedings in part ceasing to exist - No need to adjudicate in part - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 463/38)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Agrofert a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Sobolová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, J.-C. Puffer and O. Hrstková Šolcová, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar, M. Salyková and J. Hradil, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision A(2019) 8551 C (D 300153) of the European Parliament of 15 January 2021, by which it refused the applicant access to two documents relating to the investigation against the former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on misuse of European funds and potential conflicts of interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Decision A(2019) 8551 C (D 300153) of the European Parliament of 15 January 2021, in so far as it refused access to the Commission’s final audit report of 29 November 2019, bearing reference ARES 2019 7370050, relating to the audit on the functioning of the management and control systems in place in the Czech Republic for the purpose of preventing conflicts of interests; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Decision A(2019) 8551 C (D 300153) of the European Parliament of 15 January 2021, in so far as it refused access to the Commission’s final audit report of 29 November 2019, bearing reference ARES 2019 7370050, relating to the audit on the functioning of the management and control systems in place in the Czech Republic for the purpose of preventing conflicts of interests;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Agrofert, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Agrofert, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Shopify v EUIPO — Rossi and Others (Shoppi)

(Case T-222/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - EU figurative mark Shoppi - Earlier EU word mark SHOPIFY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom (Brexit))

(2022/C 463/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shopify Inc. (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi (Fiano, Italy), Salvatore Vacante, (Berlin, Germany), Shoppi Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Roth and A. Hogertz, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 February 2021 (Case R 785/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Shopify Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Shopify Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — SV v EIB

(Case T-311/21) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Performance appraisal - Promotion - Administrative review - Special procedure applicable to appraisal decisions - Rule of correspondence between the administrative review and the subsequent application - Intensity of the review - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Liability)

(2022/C 463/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SV (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: K. Carr and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant, seeks, first, annulment of his 2019 Performance Document and of the subsequent decisions adopted in the context of the special procedure for administrative review applicable to the appraisal decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and, secondly, compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders SV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission

(Case T-352/21) (1)

(Institutional law - Selection of partners to carry out Europe Direct (2021-2025) activities in Greece - Call for proposals procedure - Eligibility criteria - Rejection of application)

(2022/C 463/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Politistikos Organismos Oi Dromoi tis Elias (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: S. Vardalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision Ares (2021) 2580204 contained in the European Commission’s letter of 16 April 2021 informing it of the rejection of its proposal in the context of the procedure for the selection of partners to carry out the activities of the Europe Direct programme in Greece (ED-GREECE-2020).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Politistikos Organismos Oi Dromoi tis Elias to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Politistikos Organismos Oi Dromoi tis Elias to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)

(Case T-429/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ALDIANO - Earlier EU word marks and earlier international word registration ALDI - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court: Cantina sociale Tollo SCA (Tollo, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2021 (Case R 1074/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2021 (Case R 1074/2020-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2021 (Case R 1074/2020-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG;

| 3. | Orders Cantina sociale Tollo SCA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Cantina sociale Tollo SCA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — G-Core Innovations v EUIPO — Coretransform (G CORELABS)

(Case T-454/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark G CORELABS - Earlier EU figurative mark CORE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 463/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: G-Core Innovations Sàrl (Contern, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Coretransform GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 May 2021 (Case R 22/2021-2) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders G-Core Innovations Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders G-Core Innovations Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Vasallo Andrés v Parliament

(Case T-496/21) (1)

(Institutional law - Petitions Committee of the Parliament - Petition concerning the disciplinary regime for public employees in Spain - Question not coming within the scope of activity of the European Union - Obligation to state reasons - Conflict of interest - Effect of posting the status of a petition on the Parliament’s Internet petitions portal)

(2022/C 463/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ángel Vasallo Andrés (Valladolid, Spain) (represented by: F. J. González Álvarez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and I. Liukkonen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision D 200663 of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament, adopted on 17 May 2021 and notified on 8 June 2021, declaring inadmissible his petition (No 99/2021) concerning the disciplinary regime for public employees in Spain.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ángel Vasallo Andrés to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ángel Vasallo Andrés to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Grieger v Commission

(Case T-517/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Secondment - Commitment to reassign to a middle management post at the end of the secondment - Request to be reassigned - Interests of the service - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2022/C 463/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vladimir Grieger (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 29 October 2020 refusing his request to be reassigned to a middle management post and, in so far as necessary, of the decision of 11 May 2021 rejecting his complaint and, second, compensation for the material damage he allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Rejects the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rejects the action;

| 2. | Orders M. Vladimir Grieger to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders M. Vladimir Grieger to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-524/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission correspondence with AstraZeneca and the German authorities concerning the quantity of COVID-19 vaccines and their delivery times - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Documents having been produced in the context of court proceedings that were closed at the time of adoption of the decision refusing access to those documents - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of a third party)

(2022/C 463/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, K. Herrmann and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment, first, of Commission Decision C(2021) 5327 final of 13 July 2021 refusing the confirmatory application for access to certain documents, and, secondly, of Commission Decision C(2022) 870 final of 7 February 2022 refusing access to certain documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of Commission Decision C(2021) 5327 final of 13 July 2021 refusing the confirmatory application for access to certain documents; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of Commission Decision C(2021) 5327 final of 13 July 2021 refusing the confirmatory application for access to certain documents;

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2022) 870 final of 7 February 2022, in so far as it refused Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure access to the following documents:






  — | an annex to the bid submitted by AstraZeneca (document No 1.2); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2022) 870 final of 7 February 2022, in so far as it refused Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure access to the following documents:

—

an annex to the bid submitted by AstraZeneca (document No 1.2);

| — | a document of 12 June 2020 exchanged between AstraZeneca and the governments of a number of Member States for the negotiation and conclusion of a financing contract (document No 2); |
| --- | --- |

—

a document of 12 June 2020 exchanged between AstraZeneca and the governments of a number of Member States for the negotiation and conclusion of a financing contract (document No 2);

| — | a draft financing contract sent by AstraZeneca on 24 June 2020 to the governments of a number of Member States (document No 3); |
| --- | --- |

—

a draft financing contract sent by AstraZeneca on 24 June 2020 to the governments of a number of Member States (document No 3);

| — | a document of 20 November 2020 concerning the second payment instalment provided for in the advance purchase agreement concluded with AstraZeneca (document No 5); |
| --- | --- |

—

a document of 20 November 2020 concerning the second payment instalment provided for in the advance purchase agreement concluded with AstraZeneca (document No 5);

| — | the presentations used by AstraZeneca during the meetings of the Steering Committee of 4 December 2020, 22 January, 1, 11, 19 and 23 February and 11 March 2021 (document No 6); |
| --- | --- |

—

the presentations used by AstraZeneca during the meetings of the Steering Committee of 4 December 2020, 22 January, 1, 11, 19 and 23 February and 11 March 2021 (document No 6);

| — | a presentation used by AstraZeneca during a meeting of 7 December 2020 (document No 7); |
| --- | --- |

—

a presentation used by AstraZeneca during a meeting of 7 December 2020 (document No 7);

| — | a presentation used by AstraZeneca during a meeting of 19 January 2021 (document No 8); |
| --- | --- |

—

a presentation used by AstraZeneca during a meeting of 19 January 2021 (document No 8);

| — | a document relating to the vaccine delivery dates (document No 9) with five annexes (documents No 9.1 to No 9.5); |
| --- | --- |

—

a document relating to the vaccine delivery dates (document No 9) with five annexes (documents No 9.1 to No 9.5);

| — | a presentation used by AstraZeneca during a meeting of the Steering Committee of 25 January 2021 (document No 10); |
| --- | --- |

—

a presentation used by AstraZeneca during a meeting of the Steering Committee of 25 January 2021 (document No 10);

| — | part of the emails exchanged between the Commission and AstraZeneca on 27 July 2020 (document No 11); |
| --- | --- |

—

part of the emails exchanged between the Commission and AstraZeneca on 27 July 2020 (document No 11);

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR)

(Case T-537/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BODY STAR - Earlier EU word mark Bodyguard - Earlier national word mark Bodyguard - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: bett1.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 and R 1727/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 et R 1727/2020-2) as regards ‘mattresses; mattress toppers; beds; bed frames; slatted bases for beds; bedding except linen; cushions; pillows; neck-supporting pillows; waterbeds, not for medical purposes; air mattresses’ in Class 20 and ‘bed blankets; bed linen and blankets; ticks [mattress covers]; mattress covers; ticks (mattress and pillow coverings); sleeping bags’ in Class 24; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 et R 1727/2020-2) as regards ‘mattresses; mattress toppers; beds; bed frames; slatted bases for beds; bedding except linen; cushions; pillows; neck-supporting pillows; waterbeds, not for medical purposes; air mattresses’ in Class 20 and ‘bed blankets; bed linen and blankets; ticks [mattress covers]; mattress covers; ticks (mattress and pillow coverings); sleeping bags’ in Class 24;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe)

(Case T-539/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative mark airframe - Absolute grounds for refusal - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and D. Mienert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany) (represented by: D. Schulz and P. Stelzig, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case: R 63/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPAL TREE)

(Case T-572/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark COPAL TREE - Earlier national figurative mark COMPAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Copal Tree Brands, Inc. (Oakland, California, United States) (represented by: B. Niemann Fadani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 July 2021 (Case R 1580/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Copal Tree Brands, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Copal Tree Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Serrano Velázquez v Parliament

(Case T-589/21) (1)

(Institutional law - Petitions Committee of the Parliament - Petition concerning the infringement by the Spanish authorities of EU law in the field of fundamental rights - Decision to dismiss the petition - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 463/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: María Teresa Serrano Velázquez (Seville, Spain) (represented by: F. B. Vázquez Sánchez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and I. Liukkonen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision D 304048 of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament, adopted on 8 June 2021 and notified on 13 July 2021, declaring inadmissible her petition (No 242/2021) concerning the failure to comply with the measures for the protection and guarantee of the fundamental rights of whistle-blowers in relation to corruption which she claims has affected her.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms María Teresa Serrano Velázquez to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms María Teresa Serrano Velázquez to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (Body-Star)

(Case T-599/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Body-Star - Earlier EU word mark Bodyguard - Relative ground for refusal - Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation)

(2022/C 463/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: bett1.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2021 (Case R 1712/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 (Case R 1712/2020-2) as regards ‘mattresses; mattress toppers; beds; bed frames; slatted bases for beds; bedding, except linen; cushions; pillows; neck-supporting pillows; waterbeds, not for medical purposes; air mattresses’ in Class 20 and ‘bed throws; bed linen and blankets; ticks [mattress covers]; mattress covers; ticks (mattress and pillow coverings); sleeping bags’ in Class 24; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 (Case R 1712/2020-2) as regards ‘mattresses; mattress toppers; beds; bed frames; slatted bases for beds; bedding, except linen; cushions; pillows; neck-supporting pillows; waterbeds, not for medical purposes; air mattresses’ in Class 20 and ‘bed throws; bed linen and blankets; ticks [mattress covers]; mattress covers; ticks (mattress and pillow coverings); sleeping bags’ in Class 24;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — WV v CdT

(Case T-618/21) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary agents - Sick leave - Unjustified absences - Termination of contract without notice - Article 16 of the CEOS - Article 48(b) of the CEOS - Liability)

(2022/C 463/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (represented by: M. Garnier, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (‘CdT’) of 26 November 2020 terminating without notice his permanent employment, and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 17 June 2021 rejecting his complaint and, second, compensation for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 26 November 2020, by which the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (‘CdT’) terminated the employment of WV as a temporary agent; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 26 November 2020, by which the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (‘CdT’) terminated the employment of WV as a temporary agent;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders the CdT to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings)

(Case T-652/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a coupling for connecting refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment to a motor vehicle - Grounds for invalidity - Novelty - Individual character - Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Disclosure of the earlier design - Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002 - Scope of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Earlier design produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 28(1)(b)(i), (v) and (vi) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002)

(2022/C 463/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: L. Oliva Torras, SA (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2021 (Case R 1306/2020-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders L. Oliva Torras, S.A., to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders L. Oliva Torras, S.A., to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)

(Case T-656/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS - Earlier EU figurative mark HCapital - Relative ground for refusal - Relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H/2 Credit Manager LP (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and N. Schmitz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hcapital Partners SCR, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: V. Stilwell de Andrade, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2021 (Case R 1954/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders H/2 Credit Manager LP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders H/2 Credit Manager LP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Zegers v Commission

(Case T-663/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Retirement pension - Transfer of national pension rights - Condition requiring acquisition before entry into the service of the European Union - Recognition by the national authority of a period after entry into the service of the European Union)

(2022/C 463/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tanja Zegers (Hoeilaart, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 3 December 2020, by which the Commission rejected her request for transfer to the European Union of pension rights she had acquired in the Netherlands.

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 24, 17.1.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Les Bordes Golf International v EUIPO — Mast-Jägermeister (LES BORDES)

(Case T-696/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark LES BORDES - Earlier international figurative mark consisting of inter alia a stag’s head - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Bordes Golf International (Saint-Laurent-Nouan, France) (represented by: M. Maier, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mast-Jägermeister SE (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: C. Drzymalla, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Les Bordes Golf International, seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 September 2021 (Case R 67/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Les Bordes Golf International to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Les Bordes Golf International to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Associação do Socorro e Amparo v EUIPO — De Bragança (quis ut Deus)

(Case T-752/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark quis ut Deus - Lack of genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/57)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Associação do Socorro e Amparo (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Motta Veiga, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. Ribeiro da Cunha and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Duarte Pio De Bragança (Sintra, Portugal)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 October 2021 (Case R 581/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 October 2021 (Case R 581/2021-4) in so far as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division of 29 January 2021; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 October 2021 (Case R 581/2021-4) in so far as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division of 29 January 2021;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Associação do Socorro e Amparo. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Associação do Socorro e Amparo.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — just-organic.com v EUIPO (JUST ORGANIC)

(Case T-802/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark JUST ORGANIC - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: just-organic.com GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 October 2021 (Case: R 1010/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders just-organic.com GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders just-organic.com GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Labaš v EUIPO (FRESH)

(Case T-58/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark FRESH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Miroslav Labaš (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Vasiľ, lawyer)

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

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 November 2021 (Case R 610/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Miroslav Labaš to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Miroslav Labaš to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/42

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Dragnea v Commission

(Case T-738/18 RENV) (1)

(External investigations conducted by OLAF - Refusal of access to the OLAF investigation file - Withdrawal and replacement of the contested measure - Action now devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liviu Dragnea (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: C. Toby, O. Riffaud and B. Entringer, lawyers)

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

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant is seeking, in essence, the annulment of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) letter of 1 October 2018 by which OLAF refused, first, to open an investigation into the manner in which it had conducted two investigations and, secondly, to grant him access to several documents.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Mr Liviu Dragnea and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and to the proceedings following the referral back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Liviu Dragnea and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and to the proceedings following the referral back to the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/43

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Homoki v Commission

(Case T-517/19 INTP) (1)

(Interpretation of a judgment - Inadmissiblity)

(2022/C 463/61)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Homoki (Gyál, Hungary) (represented by: T. Hüttl, lawyer)

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

Re:

By her application under Article 168 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the applicant asks the General Court to interpret the judgment of 1 September 2021, Homoki v Commission (T-517/19, not published, EU:T:2021:529).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The request for interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The request for interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Andrea Homoki is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Andrea Homoki is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/43

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — KRBL v EUIPO — P.K. Overseas (INDIA SALAM Pure Basmati Rice)

(Case T-45/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Expiry of the international registration of the mark applied for - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KRBL Ltd (Delhi, India) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Crawcour, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: P.K. Overseas Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 November 2019 (Case R 766/2019-4).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | KRBL Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

KRBL Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/44

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Primagra and Mlékárna Hlinsko v Commission

(Joined Cases T-101/21 and T-213/21) (1)

(Actions for annulment - European Structural and Investment Funds - ERDF - Cohesion Fund - ESF - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Letter concerning the follow-up of recommendations set out by the Commission in its audit of alleged conflicts of interest - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/63)

Language of the cases: English

Parties

Applicants: Primagra a.s. (Milín, Czech Republic) (Case T-101/21), Mlékárna Hlinsko a.s. (Hlinsko, Czech Republic) (Case T-213/21) (represented by: S. Sobolová and O. Billard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hradil and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the letter of the European Commission of 22 October 2020 addressed to the Czech Republic, entitled ‘Follow up of audit No REGC414CZ0133’ and bearing the reference Ares(2020) 5759350.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The actions are dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The actions are dismissed.

| 2. | Primagra a.s. and Mlékárna Hlinsko a.s. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Primagra a.s. and Mlékárna Hlinsko a.s. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/44

---

Order of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’ v EIB

(Case T-514/21) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Environment - Financing of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline - Resolution of the Board of Directors of the EIB approving the financing - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Answer given after the action was brought - Application for an injunction - Lack of jurisdiction - Plea of inadmissibility - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’ (Melendugno, Italy) (represented by: A. Calò, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 265 TFEU, the applicant asks the Court, first, to declare that the European Investment Bank (EIB) acted unlawfully by failing to act on its request for internal review of 19 December 2020 concerning the decision of the EIB of 6 February 2018 on the financing of the gas pipeline project from Greece to Italy through Albania and the Adriatic Sea and the loan agreement signed on 30 November 2018 pursuant to that decision and, second, to order the EIB to withdraw that loan.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the first head of claim of the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No TAP’ seeking a declaration that the European Investment Bank (EIB) acted unlawfully by failing to act on its request for internal review of 19 December 2020 concerning the decision of the EIB of 6 February 2018 on the financing of the gas pipeline project from Greece to Italy through Albania and the Adriatic Sea and the loan agreement signed on 30 November 2018 pursuant to that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the first head of claim of the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No TAP’ seeking a declaration that the European Investment Bank (EIB) acted unlawfully by failing to act on its request for internal review of 19 December 2020 concerning the decision of the EIB of 6 February 2018 on the financing of the gas pipeline project from Greece to Italy through Albania and the Adriatic Sea and the loan agreement signed on 30 November 2018 pursuant to that decision.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

| 3. | EIB is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

EIB is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/45

---

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2022 — European Paper Packaging Alliance v Commission

(Case T-518/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Commission Guidelines on single-use plastic products - Directive (EU) 2019/904 - Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Paper Packaging Alliance (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of points 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 and of Tables 4-2 and 4-8 of the Commission guidelines on single-use plastic products in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (OJ 2021 C 216, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The European Paper Packaging Alliance shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission except those relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Paper Packaging Alliance shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission except those relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | The European Paper Packaging Alliance, the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The European Paper Packaging Alliance, the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/46

---

Order of the General Court of 22 September 2022 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran)

(Case T-624/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran - Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Prohibition of reformatio in pejus - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 463/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Primagran sp. z o.o. (Stegna, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Herrburger, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2021 (Case R 2486/2020-4).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Primagran sp. z o.o. shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Primagran sp. z o.o. shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/46

---

Order of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — Callaway v Commission

(Case T-653/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common agricultural policy - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Plant varieties - Producer of the hemp variety Finola - Areas cultivated in Poland - Hemp varieties eligible for financial support under the common agricultural policy - Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content - Authorisation given to Poland to prohibit the marketing of the Finola variety in its territory - Not directly concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: James C. Callaway (Kuopio, Finland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker and F. Castilla Contreras, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, James C. Callaway, seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1214 of 22 July 2021 authorising Poland to prohibit the marketing on its territory of the hemp variety Finola pursuant to Council Directive 2002/53/EC (OJ 2021 L 265, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’). He also raises, under Article 277 TFEU, pleas of illegality in respect of Article 32(6) of Regulation No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes falling within the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608), as well as Article 9(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation No 1307/2013 and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland.

| 3. | James C. Callaway shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

James C. Callaway shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs in relation to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs in relation to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/47

---

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — FC v EUAA

(Case T-697/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Refusal of request to stay disciplinary proceedings pending judgments of the General Court in related cases - Delivery of judgments of the General Court in the related pending cases - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/68)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, G. Kelepouri and A. Skoulikis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) (represented by: P. Eyckmans and M. Stamatopoulou, acting as Agents, and T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) of 25 July 2021 rejecting her complaint against the decisions of the EUAA of 24 February and 14 March 2021, by which the Chairman of the Disciplinary Board of the EUAA refused her request for staying the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | FC shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Asylum. |
| --- | --- |

2.

FC shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Asylum.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/48

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2022 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission

(Case T-788/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Independent importer - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TDK Foil Italy SpA (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, A. Scalini and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and M. Gustafsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6), in so far as that regulation includes raw aluminium foil used to produce high-voltage anode and tab foils for aluminium electrolytic capacitors within the scope of the anti-dumping duty.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | TDK Foil Italy SpA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

TDK Foil Italy SpA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/48

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case T-1/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Importer - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Act not of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Gustafsson and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

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

2.

Airoldi Metalli SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | European Aluminium shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

European Aluminium shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/49

---

Order of the General Court of 11 October 2022 — Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament

(Case T-41/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Parliament resolution on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/71)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Koźmiński and T. Siemiński, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and W. Kuzmienko, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2021 on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland (2021/2925(RSP)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris shall be ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris shall be ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/49

---

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Collard v ID

(Case T-53/22) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group - Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gilbert Collard (Vauvert, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendant: Identity and Democracy political group (ID) (represented by: J. Bosquet, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 22 and 25 January 2022 by which he was suspended and then excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID). |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID).

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Collard v Parliament and ID (T-53/22, not published, EU:T:2022:463). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Collard v Parliament and ID (T-53/22, not published, EU:T:2022:463).

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/50

---

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Rivière v ID

(Case T-54/22) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group - Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jérôme Rivière (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendant: Identity and Democracy political group (ID) (represented by: J. Bosquet, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 21 and 25 January 2022 by which he was suspended and then excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID). |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID).

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Rivière v Parliament and ID (T-54/22, not published, EU:T:2022:472). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Rivière v Parliament and ID (T-54/22, not published, EU:T:2022:472).

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/51

---

Order of the General Court of 7 October 2022 — OG and Others v Commission

(Case T-101/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/503 - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 - Regulation (EU) 2021/953 - EU Digital COVID Certificate - Freedom of movement for persons - Restrictions - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/74)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: OG and Others (represented by: D. Gómez Fernández, lawyer)

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

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek, in essence, annulment, first, of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 of 21 December 2021 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format indicating the completion of the primary vaccination series (OJ 2021 L 458, p. 459) and, second, of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/503 of 29 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards exempting minors from the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format (OJ 2022 L 102, p. 8).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | OG and Others shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

OG and Others shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/51

---

Order of the General Court of 7 October 2022 — ON v Commission

(Case T-103/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 - Regulation (EU) 2021/953 - EU Digital COVID Certificate - Freedom of movement for persons - Restrictions - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/75)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: ON (represented by: D. Mimrová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 of 21 December 2021 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format indicating the completion of the primary vaccination series (OJ 2021 L 458, p. 459).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | ON shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ON shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/52

---

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2022 — OO v EIB

(Case T-134/22) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance reduced by half - Salary statement - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OO (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and J. Pawlowicz, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU and under Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks annulment of the notice of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 27 February 2012, in so far as that notice grants her an expatriation allowance reduced by half.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | OO shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

OO shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/52

---

Order of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-165/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Refusal to grant access - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, K. Herrmann and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2022) 870 final of 7 February 2022 refusing access to certain documents.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure shall, in addition to bearing his own costs, pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure shall, in addition to bearing his own costs, pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/53

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Xpand Consortium and Others v Commission

(Case T-281/22 R)

(Interim relief - Public supply contracts - Provision of Development, Implementation, Maintenance/Operations, Advice and Consultancy Services in Accounting/Finance and Financial IT Systems - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

(2022/C 463/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Xpand Consortium (Brussels, Belgium), NTT Data Belgique (Brussels), Sopra Steria Benelux (Brussels), Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Brussels) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, L. Lence de Frutos and A. Rebollar Corrales, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek an order that the European Commission must refrain from launching a new procurement procedure with the same subject matter as that of the procedure for the award of a contract bearing the reference BUDG 19/PO/04, entitled ‘Provision of Development, Implementation, Maintenance/Operations, Advice and Consultancy Services in Accounting/Finance and Financial IT Systems’, until such time as the General Court has given a final ruling on their action for annulment, brought on 13 May 2022, against the Commission’s decision of 3 March 2022 to cancel that procurement procedure.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/53

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 18 October 2022 — Fresenius Kabi Austria and Others v Commission

(Case T-416/22 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing the active substance ‘hydroxyethyl starch (HES), solutions for infusion’ - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 463/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fresenius Kabi Austria GmbH (Graz, Austria), and the 14 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: W. Rehmann and A. Knierim, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Escobar Gómez and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek the suspension of operation of European Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3591 final of 24 May 2022 concerning, in the framework of Article 107p of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘hydroxyethyl starch (HES), solutions for infusion’ following an assessment of a post authorisation safety study.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/54

---

Action brought on 19 September 2022 — ECE Group v EUIPO — ECE Piknik Ürünleri Plastik ve Kömür Üretim Ithalat Ihracat (ECE QUALITY OF LIFE)

(Case T-581/22)

(2022/C 463/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ECE Group GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske, M. Tillwich and P. Funke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ECE Piknik Ürünleri Plastik ve Kömür Üretim Ithalat Ihracat Anonim Sirketi (Dilovasi/Kocaeli, Türkiye)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ECE QUALITY OF LIFE — Application for registration No 18 163 717

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2022 in Case R 1384/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the contested decision, so that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and the European Union trade mark application No 18 163 717 is refused in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision, so that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and the European Union trade mark application No 18 163 717 is refused in its entirety;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/55

---

Action brought on 23 September 2022 — RM v Parliament

(Case T-593/22)

(2022/C 463/81)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: RM (represented by: D. Aukštuolytė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 25 July 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 25 July 2022;

| — | cancel debit note No 7020001038 issued by the European Parliament on 27 July 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

cancel debit note No 7020001038 issued by the European Parliament on 27 July 2022;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament infringed the five-year period laid down in Article 98(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018, within which a debit note must be sent in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, in so far as, as from 17 June 2016, the Parliament was in a position to claim its debt from the applicant and had in its possession all the supporting accounting documents relating to that debt, but did not send a debit note to the applicant until 27 July 2022. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament infringed the five-year period laid down in Article 98(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018, within which a debit note must be sent in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, in so far as, as from 17 June 2016, the Parliament was in a position to claim its debt from the applicant and had in its possession all the supporting accounting documents relating to that debt, but did not send a debit note to the applicant until 27 July 2022.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Parliament, without justification, unreasonably and unfairly delayed in initiating the recovery procedure by failing to observe the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable time, as laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Because of this, the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed, since the late initiation of the procedure deprived the applicant of the opportunity to defend himself effectively against the allegations made by gathering the necessary evidence when it was still possible to do so. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Parliament, without justification, unreasonably and unfairly delayed in initiating the recovery procedure by failing to observe the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable time, as laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Because of this, the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed, since the late initiation of the procedure deprived the applicant of the opportunity to defend himself effectively against the allegations made by gathering the necessary evidence when it was still possible to do so.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed an error of assessment, in that it failed to assess properly the evidence and explanations submitted by the applicant to substantiate the work of his local assistant, thereby imposing an excessively high standard of proof on the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed an error of assessment, in that it failed to assess properly the evidence and explanations submitted by the applicant to substantiate the work of his local assistant, thereby imposing an excessively high standard of proof on the applicant.

---

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

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/56

---

Action brought on 10 October 2022 — Topper Argentina v EUIPO — Ningbo Xiangxinli Network Technology (wetoper)

(Case T-630/22)

(2022/C 463/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Topper Argentina, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. M. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ningbo Xiangxinli Network Technology Co. Ltd (Qingdao, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark wetoper — EU trade mark No 18 249 968

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2022 in Case R 2126/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener (if it enters an appearance and intervenes in these proceedings) to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener (if it enters an appearance and intervenes in these proceedings) to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/56

---

Action brought on 11 October 2022 — Beijing Unicorn Technology v EUIPO — WD Plus (Device of a circle with two sharp points)

(Case T-631/22)

(2022/C 463/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Beijing Unicorn Technology Co. Ltd (Beijing, China) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and S. Clotten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WD Plus GmbH (Hannover, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark representing a device of a circle with two sharp points — Application for registration No 18 278 716

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 July 2022 in Case R 246/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of the EUIPO’s obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the EUIPO’s obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/57

---

Action brought on 12 October 2022 — VF International v EUIPO — Super Brand Licencing (GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY EXPEDITION)

(Case T-639/22)

(2022/C 463/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: Y. Bizollon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Super Brand Licencing SAS (Villeurbanne, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY EXPEDITION in the colours black, taupe, red, white — EU trade mark No 9 860 834

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 August 2022 in Case R 124/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

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

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) and Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) and Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/58

---

Action brought on 15 October 2022 — C. & S. v EUIPO — Scuderia AlphaTauri (CS jeans your best fashion partner)

(Case T-645/22)

(2022/C 463/85)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: C. & S. Srl (Umbertide, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scuderia AlphaTauri SpA (Faenza, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark CS jeans your best fashion partner — European Union trade mark No 9 387 986

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2022 in Case R 182/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/58

---

Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — e-bility (Scooter)

(Case T-646/22)

(2022/C 463/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Piaggio & C. (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: e-bility GmbH (Remagen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design (Scooter) — Community design No 4363588-0001

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2022 in Case R 1663/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the proprietor’s Community design registered under No 4363588-0001 invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the proprietor’s Community design registered under No 4363588-0001 invalid;

| — | order the defendant and the proprietor to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the proprietor to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| — | order EUIPO and the potential other party to the present proceedings to pay all of the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the potential other party to the present proceedings to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Incorrect assessment and unfounded exclusion of decisive evidence provided by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect assessment and unfounded exclusion of decisive evidence provided by the applicant;

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/59

---

Action brought on 17 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Shoes)

(Case T-647/22)

(2022/C 463/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Waalwijck, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 3 320 555-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2022 in Case R 726/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Failure to take into account the breach of contractual obligations and bad faith. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to take into account the breach of contractual obligations and bad faith.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/60

---

Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Shammout v Council

(Case T-649/22)

(2022/C 463/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Issam Shammout (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1277 of 21 July 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1277 of 21 July 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant,

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275 of 21 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275 of 21 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant,

| — | sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error in assessing the facts. The Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that the applicant is a ‘leading business person operating in Syria’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error in assessing the facts. The Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that the applicant is a ‘leading business person operating in Syria’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of exercise of a profession. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of exercise of a profession.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons provided in Article 296(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons provided in Article 296(2) TFEU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence and of the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence and of the right to a fair trial.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1277 of 21 July 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2022 L 194, p. 15).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275 of 21 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO 2022 L 194, p. 8).

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/60

---

Action brought on 19 October 2022 — Silex v Commission

(Case T-653/22)

(2022/C 463/89)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Silex Ipari Automatizálási Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision No C(2022) 5863 of 9 August 2022 relating to the recovery of EUR 27 726,44(twenty-seven thousand seven hundred twenty-six euro and forty-four cents) and late payment interest from Silex Ipari Automatizálizasi Zrt.; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision No C(2022) 5863 of 9 August 2022 relating to the recovery of EUR 27 726,44(twenty-seven thousand seven hundred twenty-six euro and forty-four cents) and late payment interest from Silex Ipari Automatizálizasi Zrt.; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs, even if the applicant is unsuccessful, since the principle of sound administration was infringed. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs, even if the applicant is unsuccessful, since the principle of sound administration was infringed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

| 1. | First, second and third pleas in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of sound financial management.






  — | The Commission breached its obligation to state reasons, made a manifest error of assessment, and breached the principle of sound financial management by basing its Decision No C(2022) 5863 final of 9 August 2022, under which the applicant is required to pay 27 726,44 euros plus interest, on






  — | the first annual revised report of the Executive Agency for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (‘EASME’) of 25 April 2018, adopted after an on-site review that took place on in March 2018; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.

First, second and third pleas in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of sound financial management.

—

The Commission breached its obligation to state reasons, made a manifest error of assessment, and breached the principle of sound financial management by basing its Decision No C(2022) 5863 final of 9 August 2022, under which the applicant is required to pay 27 726,44 euros plus interest, on

—

the first annual revised report of the Executive Agency for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (‘EASME’) of 25 April 2018, adopted after an on-site review that took place on in March 2018;

| — | EASME’s letter of 15 June 2018, indicating for the first time its intention to terminate the grant agreement bearing the reference 739280 ELECTRIC_AXLE, concluded between the applicant and EASME, and the statement of reasons for that letter; |
| --- | --- |

—

EASME’s letter of 15 June 2018, indicating for the first time its intention to terminate the grant agreement bearing the reference 739280 ELECTRIC_AXLE, concluded between the applicant and EASME, and the statement of reasons for that letter;

| — | EASME’s letter of 8 October 2018 effectively terminating the grant agreement and the statement of reasons for that letter, and |
| --- | --- |

—

EASME’s letter of 8 October 2018 effectively terminating the grant agreement and the statement of reasons for that letter, and

| — | EASME’s final report of 31 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

—

EASME’s final report of 31 July 2019.

| 2. | Fourth plea in law alleging breach of the principle of sound administration






  — | The Commission breached the principle of sound administration






  — | by failing to examine the merits of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the manner in which EASME acted in implementing the grant agreement; and |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.

Fourth plea in law alleging breach of the principle of sound administration

—

The Commission breached the principle of sound administration

—

by failing to examine the merits of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the manner in which EASME acted in implementing the grant agreement; and

| — | by claiming in the contested decision that the applicant had not responded to the payment notices and payment reminders. |
| --- | --- |

—

by claiming in the contested decision that the applicant had not responded to the payment notices and payment reminders.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/61

---

Order of the General Court of 14 October 2022 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-335/20) (1)

(2022/C 463/90)

Language of the case: Czech

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

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/61

---

Order of the General Court of 14 October 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET)

(Case T-11/22) (1)

(2022/C 463/91)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

---

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/62

---

Order of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — HCP v EUIPO — Timm Health Care (PYLOMED)

(Case T-138/22) (1)

(2022/C 463/92)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---