# Official Journal C 237/20 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 237 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6520 June 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 237

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6520 June 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 237/01 | 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 237/01

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 237/02 | Case C-401/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive (EU) 2019/790 — Article 17(4), point (b), and point (c), in fine — Article 11 and Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom of expression and information — Protection of intellectual property — Obligations imposed on online content-sharing service providers — Prior automatic review (filtering) of content uploaded by users) | 2 |
| 2022/C 237/03 | Case C-666/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v European Commission, Hyet Sweet SAS (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China — Regulations No 1225/2009 and 2016/1036 — Temporal scope — Article 2(7) — Market economy treatment — Denied — Article 2(10) — Adjustments — Burden of proof — Article 3 — Determination of injury — Duty of care of the European Commission) | 3 |
| 2022/C 237/04 | Case C-79/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Yieh United Steel Corp. v European Commission, Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 — Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2 — Calculation of the normal value — Calculation of the production cost — Production losses — Refusal to deduct the value of recycled scrap — Determination of the normal value on the basis of sales of the like product intended for domestic consumption — Exclusion from the basis of calculation used to determine the normal value of sales on the domestic market of the exporting country where those sales concern products intended for export) | 3 |
| 2022/C 237/05 | Case C-86/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Vinařství U Kapličky s.r.o. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Wine — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Rules concerning marketing — Article 80 — Oenological practices — Prohibition on marketing — Article 90 — Imports of wine — Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 — Article 43 — V I 1 document — Certificate of production of consignments of wine in accordance with recommended and authorised oenological practices — Probative value — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 89(4) — Penalties — Marketing of wine from a third country — Wine having undergone unauthorised oenological practices — Exoneration from liability — Burden of proof) | 4 |
| 2022/C 237/06 | Case C-237/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Heiploeg Seafood International BV, Heitrans International BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Articles 3 to 5 — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Exceptions — Insolvency proceedings — Pre-pack — Survival of an undertaking — Transfer of (part of) an undertaking following a declaration of insolvency preceded by a pre-pack) | 5 |
| 2022/C 237/07 | Case C-319/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Limited v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 80 — Representation of the data subjects by a not-for-profit association — Representative action brought by a consumer protection association in the absence of a mandate and independently of the infringement of specific rights of a data subject — Action based on the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, the infringement of a consumer protection law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions) | 6 |
| 2022/C 237/08 | Joined Cases C-368/20 and C-369/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (C-368/20), Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz (C-369/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Free movement of persons — Regulation (EU) 2016/399 — Schengen Borders Code — Article 25(4) — Temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders for a maximum total duration of six months — National legislation providing for a number of successive periods of border control resulting in that duration being exceeded — Non-compliance of such legislation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code where the successive periods are based on the same threat or threats — National legislation requiring, on pain of a penalty, a passport or identity card to be presented when the internal border control is carried out — Non-compliance of such an obligation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code when the border control itself is contrary to that provision) | 7 |
| 2022/C 237/09 | Joined Cases C-415/20, C-419/20 and C-427/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Gräfendorfer Geflügel- und Tiefkühlfeinkost Produktions GmbH (C-415/20), F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG vertr. d. d. Komplementärin Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH (C-419/20), Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-415/20 and C-419/20), Hauptzollamt Kiel (C-427/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Rights to the repayment or to the payment of sums of money levied or refused by a Member State in breach of EU law — Anti-dumping duties, import duties, export refunds and financial penalties — Concept of breach of EU law — Misinterpretation or misapplication of EU law — Finding of a breach of EU law by a Court of the European Union or by a national court — Right to the payment of interest — Period covered by that payment of interest) | 8 |
| 2022/C 237/10 | Case C-510/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Environment — Directive 2008/56/EC — Marine environmental policy — Article 5 — Marine strategies — Article 17(2) and (3) — Failure to review, within the time limits, the initial assessment, the determination of good environmental status and the environmental targets — Failure to send to the European Commission, within the time limts, details of any updates made following the reviews) | 9 |
| 2022/C 237/11 | Case C-531/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 3 — General obligation concerning the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights — Article 14 — Concept of reasonable and proportionate legal costs — Consultation of a patent lawyer — Absence of opportunity for the national court to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party) | 9 |
| 2022/C 237/12 | Case C-559/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Koch Media GmbH v FU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 14 — Concepts of legal costs and other expenses — Warning notice in order to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights out of court — Lawyers’ fees — Classification — National provision limiting the amount of those costs recoverable under certain conditions) | 10 |
| 2022/C 237/13 | Case C-612/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Happy Education SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(i) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Exemptions related to children’s or young people’s education, school or university education — Supply of educational services supplementing the school curriculum — Private law body providing those services for commercial purposes) | 11 |
| 2022/C 237/14 | Case C-637/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax — Article 30a(1) — Concept of voucher — Article 30a(3) — Concept of multi-purpose voucher — Sale of a card entitling the cardholder to a number of tourist services for a limited period) | 11 |
| 2022/C 237/15 | Case C-642/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Caruter s.r.l. v S.R.R. Messina Provincia S.c.P.A. and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2014/24/EU — Public procurement — Article 63 — Reliance by a group of economic operators on the capacities of other entities — Possibility for the contracting authority to require that certain critical tasks be performed by a participant of that group — National legislation stipulating that the undertaking representing that group must satisfy the majority of the criteria and perform the majority of the services) | 12 |
| 2022/C 237/16 | Case C-674/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Airbnb Ireland UC v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market — Article 114(2) TFEU — Exclusion of fiscal provisions — Directive 2000/31/EC — Information society services — Electronic commerce — Online property rental platform — Article 1(5)(a) — Exclusion of the field of taxation — Definition — Regional legislation concerning a tax on tourist accommodation establishments — Provision requiring intermediaries to provide, on a written request, certain particulars concerning the operation of those establishments to the tax authority with the aim of identifying persons liable for that tax — Article 56 TFEU — No discrimination — No restriction) | 13 |
| 2022/C 237/17 | Case C-44/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 9(1) — European patent — Interim measures — Power of national judicial authorities to issue an interlocutory injunction to prevent an imminent infringement of an intellectual property right — National case-law dismissing applications for interim measures where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law) | 14 |
| 2022/C 237/18 | Case C-72/21: Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA PRODEX v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Subheading 4418 20 — Scope — Doors and their frames and thresholds — MDF panels and mouldings — First sentence of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature — Incomplete or unfinished article — Concept) | 14 |
| 2022/C 237/19 | Case C-86/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León v Delia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Equal treatment — National system for the recognition of health professionals’ career progression — Failure to take professional experience gained in another Member State’s health services into consideration — Barrier) | 15 |
| 2022/C 237/20 | Case C-89/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Romega UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food law — Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 — Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs — Article 1 — Annex I — Fresh poultry meat — Checks by the competent national authorities for the presence of the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of that annex — Checks for the presence of other pathogenic microorganisms — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Article 14(8) — Discretion of the national authorities — Scope) | 16 |
| 2022/C 237/21 | Joined Cases C-160/21 and C-217/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010 EOOD (C-160/21), Agro — eko 2013 EOOD (C-217/21) v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Payments to beneficiaries — Article 75 — Time limit for payment — Compliance — None — Tacit refusal of the application for aid) | 16 |
| 2022/C 237/22 | Case C-251/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Piltenes meži SIA v Lauku atbalsta dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 — Support for rural development by the EAFRD — Article 30 — Natura 2000 payments — Scope — Application for aid in respect of a micro-reserve created in a forest that is not part of the Natura 2000 network, with the purpose of protecting a species of wild bird — Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 — Block exemption for certain types of aid to the agriculture and forestry sectors — Application to aid co-financed by means of EU resources — No application to undertakings in difficulty) | 17 |
| 2022/C 237/23 | Case C-277/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Secrétariat général de l’Enseignement catholique ASBL (SeGEC) and Others v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN), Banque nationale de Belgique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 — European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union — Annex A, paragraph 20.15 — Control exercised by an institute of national accounts over the organising authorities of educational establishments constituted in the form of non-profit institutions — Educational establishments receiving public financing and enjoying freedom of education guaranteed by the Constitution — Annex A, paragraph 20.15, second sentence — Concept of public intervention in the form of general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity — Scope — Annex A, paragraph 20.15, first sentence — Annex A, paragraph 2.39(b), paragraph 20.15(b) and paragraph 20.309(h) — Concept of excessive regulation — Scope) | 18 |
| 2022/C 237/24 | Case C-286/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for micro particles (PM10) in certain zones in France — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures) | 19 |
| 2022/C 237/25 | Case C-804/21 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — C and CD v Syyttäjä (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 23(3) — Requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority — Article 6(2) — Police services — Not included — Force majeure — Concept — Legal obstacles to surrender — Legal actions brought by the requested person — Application for international protection — Not included — Article 23(5) — Expiry of the time limits provided for surrender — Consequences — Release — Obligation to adopt any other measure necessary to prevent absconding) | 20 |
| 2022/C 237/26 | Joined Cases C-306/19, C-512/19, C-595/19 and C-608/20 to C-611/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Milis Energy SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (C-306/19), Go Sun Srl and Malby Energy 4 Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia, Reti e Ambiente and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (C-512/19), Fototre Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (C-595/19), and Interporto di Trieste SpA (C-608/20), Soelia SpA (C-609/20) and Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo (C-610/20 and C-611/20) v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (References for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Environment — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16 and 17 — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Energy Charter Treaty — Article 10 — Applicability — Directive 2009/28/EC — Article 3(3)(a) — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Production of electricity from solar photovoltaic installations — Alteration of a support scheme) | 21 |
| 2022/C 237/27 | Case C-464/21: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — QL v Universitat de Barcelona (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector — Clause 2 and Clause 3(1) — Scope — Concept of fixed-term worker) | 22 |
| 2022/C 237/28 | Case C-420/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2021 by Valvis Holding SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2021 in Case T-638/19, Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO — Valvis Holding | 23 |
| 2022/C 237/29 | Case C-761/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-351/20, St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua | 23 |
| 2022/C 237/30 | Case C-762/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-352/20, St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Elephant | 23 |
| 2022/C 237/31 | Case C-1/22 P: Appeal brought on 1 January 2022 by José María Castillejo Oriol against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2021 in Case T-419/21, Castillejo Oriol v Commission | 24 |
| 2022/C 237/32 | Case C-90/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2022 — Gjensidige ADB | 24 |
| 2022/C 237/33 | Case C-100/22 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2022 by KY against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-433/20 KY v Court of Justice of the European Union | 25 |
| 2022/C 237/34 | Case C-112/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 17 February 2022 — Criminal proceedings against CU | 25 |
| 2022/C 237/35 | Case C-129/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 24 February 2022 — EF v Stadt Offenbach am Main | 27 |
| 2022/C 237/36 | Case C-130/22 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2022 by DD against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-703/19, DD v FRA | 27 |
| 2022/C 237/37 | Case C-162/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2022 — A.G. v Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra | 28 |
| 2022/C 237/38 | Case C-178/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 8 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against Unknown individuals | 29 |
| 2022/C 237/39 | Case C-181/22 P: Appeal brought on 9 March 2022 by Nemea Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2021 in Case T-321/17, Niemelä and Others v ECB | 30 |
| 2022/C 237/40 | Case C-182/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2022 — JU v Scalable Capital GmbH | 30 |
| 2022/C 237/41 | Case C-184/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2022 — IK v KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V. | 31 |
| 2022/C 237/42 | Case C-185/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2022 — CM v KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V. | 33 |
| 2022/C 237/43 | Case C-189/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 March 2022 — SO v Scalable Capital GmbH | 34 |
| 2022/C 237/44 | Case C-193/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 March 2022 — TR, UQ v FTI Touristik GmbH | 35 |
| 2022/C 237/45 | Case C-206/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2022 — TF v Sparkasse Südpfalz | 36 |
| 2022/C 237/46 | Case C-218/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2022 — BU v Comune di Copertino | 36 |
| 2022/C 237/47 | Case C-223/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 29 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against ND | 37 |
| 2022/C 237/48 | Case C-227/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Gabrovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 March 2022 — IL v Regionalna direktsia Avtomobilna administratsia Pleven | 38 |
| 2022/C 237/49 | Case C-228/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 1 April 2022 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH | 38 |
| 2022/C 237/50 | Case C-234/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 4 April 2022 — Roheline Kogukond MTÜ, Eesti Metsa Abiks MTÜ, Päästame Eesti Metsad MTÜ and Sihtasutus Keskkonnateabe Ühendus v Keskkonnaagentuur | 39 |
| 2022/C 237/51 | Case C-248/22: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 8 April 2022 — Z.K. and M.S. v The Minister for Justice and Equality | 40 |
| 2022/C 237/52 | Case C-249/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 April 2022 — BM v Gebühren Info Service GmbH (GIS) | 41 |
| 2022/C 237/53 | Case C-256/22 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2022 by Pilatus Bank plc against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 February 2022 in Case T-27/19, Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB | 41 |
| 2022/C 237/54 | Case C-291/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 May 2022 by Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2022 in Case T-556/20 D & A Pharma v Commission and EMA | 42 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 237/55 | Cases T-335/18, T-338/18 and T-327/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Mubarak and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Egypt — Measures directed against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds — Maintenance of the applicants’ names on the list — Rights of the defence — Obligation on the Council of the European Union to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment) | 44 |
| 2022/C 237/56 | Case T-508/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme implemented by the Government of Gibraltar concerning corporation tax — Tax exemption for interest income and royalties — Advance tax rulings benefiting multinationals — Commission decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Selective advantage — Right to submit comments) | 45 |
| 2022/C 237/57 | Case T-634/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — FC v EUAA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pre-disciplinary proceedings — Suspension, withholding of remuneration and prohibition on access to EUAA’s premises and facilities — OLAF Report — Principle of sound administration — Right to be heard — Principle of impartiality — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Liability — Close link with the claim for annulment) | 46 |
| 2022/C 237/58 | Case T-392/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Flašker v Commission (State aid — Measures granted by Slovenia to a municipal network of dispensing pharmacies — Preliminary examination phase — Decision of the Commission finding no State aid and, possibly, that there is existing aid — Decision adopted without initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Serious difficulties) | 47 |
| 2022/C 237/59 | Case T-425/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — KU v EEAS (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — EEAS staff — Psychological harassment — Administrative investigation — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Reasonable time — Liability) | 47 |
| 2022/C 237/60 | Case T-750/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Correia v EESC (Civil service — EESC staff — Members of the temporary staff — Request for career reconstitution — Rejection of the request — Action for annulment — Proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure — Time limit for lodging a complaint — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Legal certainty — Entitlement to reasonable career prospects — Absence of a right to career constitution — Obligation to carry out a consideration of the comparative merits — Liability — Non-material damage) | 48 |
| 2022/C 237/61 | Case T-68/21: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — QA v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) — Audit report — Language — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Proportionality — Principle of good administration) | 49 |
| 2022/C 237/62 | Case T-208/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Dorit-DFT v EUIPO — Erwin Suter (DORIT) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark DORIT — Earlier national company names — Relative ground for refusal — No use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 49 |
| 2022/C 237/63 | Case T-219/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Agora Invest v EUIPO — Transportes Maquinaria y Obras (TRAMOSA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TRAMOSA — Earlier EU figurative mark TRAMO, SA TRANSPORTE MAQUINARIA Y OBRAS, S.A. — 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) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character) | 50 |
| 2022/C 237/64 | Case T-276/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Moio v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (moio.care) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark moio.care — Earlier EU word mark Molicare — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 51 |
| 2022/C 237/65 | Case T-6/21: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 51 |
| 2022/C 237/66 | Case T-226/21: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Retail Royalty v EUIPO — Fashion Energy (Representation of an eagle) (European Union trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate) | 52 |
| 2022/C 237/67 | Case T-265/21: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Sunshine Smile v EUIPO (PlusDental+) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 52 |
| 2022/C 237/68 | Case T-343/21: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA) (European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate) | 53 |
| 2022/C 237/69 | Case T-345/21: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA NETWORKS) (European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate) | 54 |
| 2022/C 237/70 | Case T-797/21: Order of the General Court of 29 March 2022 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXORIGINAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 54 |
| 2022/C 237/71 | Case T-798/21: Order of the General Court of 29 March 2022 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXFORTE) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 55 |
| 2022/C 237/72 | Case T-522/21: Action brought on 18 January 2022 — XH v Commission | 55 |
| 2022/C 237/73 | Case T-173/22: Action brought on 30 March 2022 — T-Systems International v Commission | 56 |
| 2022/C 237/74 | Case T-196/22: Action brought on 14 April 2022 — Mariani v Parliament | 57 |
| 2022/C 237/75 | Case T-200/22: Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Poland v Commission | 58 |
| 2022/C 237/76 | Case T-203/22: Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Netherlands v Commission | 59 |
| 2022/C 237/77 | Case T-206/22: Action brought on 20 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council | 59 |
| 2022/C 237/78 | Case T-207/22: Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Mhana v Council | 60 |
| 2022/C 237/79 | Case T-208/22: Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council | 61 |
| 2022/C 237/80 | Case T-209/22: Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council | 62 |
| 2022/C 237/81 | Case T-212/22: Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Prigozhina v Council | 62 |
| 2022/C 237/82 | Case T-217/22: Action brought on 20 April 2022 — Lifestyle Equities v EUIPO — Greenwich Polo Club (GREENWICH POLO CLUB) | 63 |
| 2022/C 237/83 | Case T-218/22: Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles) | 64 |
| 2022/C 237/84 | Case T-219/22: Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Wallmax v EUIPO — Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles) | 65 |
| 2022/C 237/85 | Case T-220/22: Action brought on 25 April 2022 — CiviBank v ECB | 65 |
| 2022/C 237/86 | Case T-221/22: Action brought on 25 April 2022 — Pharmaselect International v EUIPO — OmniActive Health Technologies (LUTAMAX) | 66 |
| 2022/C 237/87 | Case T-222/22: Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Engineering — Ingegneria Informatica v Commission and REA | 67 |
| 2022/C 237/88 | Case T-228/22: Action brought on 27 April 2022 — Casablanca Clothing v EUIPO — Adrien (CASABLANCA TENNIS CLUB) | 68 |
| 2022/C 237/89 | Case T-231/22: Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover) | 69 |
| 2022/C 237/90 | Case T-232/22: Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (catlover) | 69 |
| 2022/C 237/91 | Case T-233/22: Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Islentyeva v Council | 70 |
| 2022/C 237/92 | Case T-234/22: Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Ismailova v Council | 71 |
| 2022/C 237/93 | Case T-235/22: Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Russian Direct Investment Fund v Council | 72 |
| 2022/C 237/94 | Case T-236/22: Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Intel Corporation v Commission | 73 |
| 2022/C 237/95 | Case T-239/22: Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO) | 75 |
| 2022/C 237/96 | Case T-242/22: Action brought on 3 May 2022 — OmniActive Health Technologies v EUIPO — Pharmaselect International (LUTAMAX) | 75 |
| 2022/C 237/97 | Case T-245/22: Action brought on 4 May 2022 — PGTEX Morocco v Commission | 76 |
| 2022/C 237/98 | Case T-246/22: Action brought on 4 May 2022 — PGTEX Morocco v Commission | 77 |
| 2022/C 237/99 | Case T-253/22: Action brought on 9 May 2022 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality) | 78 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 237/02

Case C-401/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive (EU) 2019/790 — Article 17(4), point (b), and point (c), in fine — Article 11 and Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom of expression and information — Protection of intellectual property — Obligations imposed on online content-sharing service providers — Prior automatic review (filtering) of content uploaded by users)

2

2022/C 237/03

Case C-666/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v European Commission, Hyet Sweet SAS (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China — Regulations No 1225/2009 and 2016/1036 — Temporal scope — Article 2(7) — Market economy treatment — Denied — Article 2(10) — Adjustments — Burden of proof — Article 3 — Determination of injury — Duty of care of the European Commission)

3

2022/C 237/04

Case C-79/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Yieh United Steel Corp. v European Commission, Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 — Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2 — Calculation of the normal value — Calculation of the production cost — Production losses — Refusal to deduct the value of recycled scrap — Determination of the normal value on the basis of sales of the like product intended for domestic consumption — Exclusion from the basis of calculation used to determine the normal value of sales on the domestic market of the exporting country where those sales concern products intended for export)

3

2022/C 237/05

Case C-86/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Vinařství U Kapličky s.r.o. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Wine — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Rules concerning marketing — Article 80 — Oenological practices — Prohibition on marketing — Article 90 — Imports of wine — Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 — Article 43 — V I 1 document — Certificate of production of consignments of wine in accordance with recommended and authorised oenological practices — Probative value — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 89(4) — Penalties — Marketing of wine from a third country — Wine having undergone unauthorised oenological practices — Exoneration from liability — Burden of proof)

4

2022/C 237/06

Case C-237/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Heiploeg Seafood International BV, Heitrans International BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Articles 3 to 5 — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Exceptions — Insolvency proceedings — Pre-pack — Survival of an undertaking — Transfer of (part of) an undertaking following a declaration of insolvency preceded by a pre-pack)

5

2022/C 237/07

Case C-319/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Limited v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 80 — Representation of the data subjects by a not-for-profit association — Representative action brought by a consumer protection association in the absence of a mandate and independently of the infringement of specific rights of a data subject — Action based on the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, the infringement of a consumer protection law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions)

6

2022/C 237/08

Joined Cases C-368/20 and C-369/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (C-368/20), Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz (C-369/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Free movement of persons — Regulation (EU) 2016/399 — Schengen Borders Code — Article 25(4) — Temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders for a maximum total duration of six months — National legislation providing for a number of successive periods of border control resulting in that duration being exceeded — Non-compliance of such legislation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code where the successive periods are based on the same threat or threats — National legislation requiring, on pain of a penalty, a passport or identity card to be presented when the internal border control is carried out — Non-compliance of such an obligation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code when the border control itself is contrary to that provision)

7

2022/C 237/09

Joined Cases C-415/20, C-419/20 and C-427/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Gräfendorfer Geflügel- und Tiefkühlfeinkost Produktions GmbH (C-415/20), F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG vertr. d. d. Komplementärin Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH (C-419/20), Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-415/20 and C-419/20), Hauptzollamt Kiel (C-427/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Rights to the repayment or to the payment of sums of money levied or refused by a Member State in breach of EU law — Anti-dumping duties, import duties, export refunds and financial penalties — Concept of breach of EU law — Misinterpretation or misapplication of EU law — Finding of a breach of EU law by a Court of the European Union or by a national court — Right to the payment of interest — Period covered by that payment of interest)

8

2022/C 237/10

Case C-510/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Environment — Directive 2008/56/EC — Marine environmental policy — Article 5 — Marine strategies — Article 17(2) and (3) — Failure to review, within the time limits, the initial assessment, the determination of good environmental status and the environmental targets — Failure to send to the European Commission, within the time limts, details of any updates made following the reviews)

9

2022/C 237/11

Case C-531/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 3 — General obligation concerning the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights — Article 14 — Concept of reasonable and proportionate legal costs — Consultation of a patent lawyer — Absence of opportunity for the national court to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party)

9

2022/C 237/12

Case C-559/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Koch Media GmbH v FU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 14 — Concepts of legal costs and other expenses — Warning notice in order to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights out of court — Lawyers’ fees — Classification — National provision limiting the amount of those costs recoverable under certain conditions)

10

2022/C 237/13

Case C-612/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Happy Education SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(i) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Exemptions related to children’s or young people’s education, school or university education — Supply of educational services supplementing the school curriculum — Private law body providing those services for commercial purposes)

11

2022/C 237/14

Case C-637/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax — Article 30a(1) — Concept of voucher — Article 30a(3) — Concept of multi-purpose voucher — Sale of a card entitling the cardholder to a number of tourist services for a limited period)

11

2022/C 237/15

Case C-642/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Caruter s.r.l. v S.R.R. Messina Provincia S.c.P.A. and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2014/24/EU — Public procurement — Article 63 — Reliance by a group of economic operators on the capacities of other entities — Possibility for the contracting authority to require that certain critical tasks be performed by a participant of that group — National legislation stipulating that the undertaking representing that group must satisfy the majority of the criteria and perform the majority of the services)

12

2022/C 237/16

Case C-674/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Airbnb Ireland UC v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market — Article 114(2) TFEU — Exclusion of fiscal provisions — Directive 2000/31/EC — Information society services — Electronic commerce — Online property rental platform — Article 1(5)(a) — Exclusion of the field of taxation — Definition — Regional legislation concerning a tax on tourist accommodation establishments — Provision requiring intermediaries to provide, on a written request, certain particulars concerning the operation of those establishments to the tax authority with the aim of identifying persons liable for that tax — Article 56 TFEU — No discrimination — No restriction)

13

2022/C 237/17

Case C-44/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 9(1) — European patent — Interim measures — Power of national judicial authorities to issue an interlocutory injunction to prevent an imminent infringement of an intellectual property right — National case-law dismissing applications for interim measures where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)

14

2022/C 237/18

Case C-72/21: Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA PRODEX v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Subheading 4418 20 — Scope — Doors and their frames and thresholds — MDF panels and mouldings — First sentence of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature — Incomplete or unfinished article — Concept)

14

2022/C 237/19

Case C-86/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León v Delia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Equal treatment — National system for the recognition of health professionals’ career progression — Failure to take professional experience gained in another Member State’s health services into consideration — Barrier)

15

2022/C 237/20

Case C-89/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Romega UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food law — Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 — Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs — Article 1 — Annex I — Fresh poultry meat — Checks by the competent national authorities for the presence of the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of that annex — Checks for the presence of other pathogenic microorganisms — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Article 14(8) — Discretion of the national authorities — Scope)

16

2022/C 237/21

Joined Cases C-160/21 and C-217/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010 EOOD (C-160/21), Agro — eko 2013 EOOD (C-217/21) v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Payments to beneficiaries — Article 75 — Time limit for payment — Compliance — None — Tacit refusal of the application for aid)

16

2022/C 237/22

Case C-251/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Piltenes meži SIA v Lauku atbalsta dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 — Support for rural development by the EAFRD — Article 30 — Natura 2000 payments — Scope — Application for aid in respect of a micro-reserve created in a forest that is not part of the Natura 2000 network, with the purpose of protecting a species of wild bird — Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 — Block exemption for certain types of aid to the agriculture and forestry sectors — Application to aid co-financed by means of EU resources — No application to undertakings in difficulty)

17

2022/C 237/23

Case C-277/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Secrétariat général de l’Enseignement catholique ASBL (SeGEC) and Others v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN), Banque nationale de Belgique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 — European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union — Annex A, paragraph 20.15 — Control exercised by an institute of national accounts over the organising authorities of educational establishments constituted in the form of non-profit institutions — Educational establishments receiving public financing and enjoying freedom of education guaranteed by the Constitution — Annex A, paragraph 20.15, second sentence — Concept of public intervention in the form of general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity — Scope — Annex A, paragraph 20.15, first sentence — Annex A, paragraph 2.39(b), paragraph 20.15(b) and paragraph 20.309(h) — Concept of excessive regulation — Scope)

18

2022/C 237/24

Case C-286/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for micro particles (PM10) in certain zones in France — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures)

19

2022/C 237/25

Case C-804/21 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — C and CD v Syyttäjä (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 23(3) — Requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority — Article 6(2) — Police services — Not included — Force majeure — Concept — Legal obstacles to surrender — Legal actions brought by the requested person — Application for international protection — Not included — Article 23(5) — Expiry of the time limits provided for surrender — Consequences — Release — Obligation to adopt any other measure necessary to prevent absconding)

20

2022/C 237/26

Joined Cases C-306/19, C-512/19, C-595/19 and C-608/20 to C-611/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Milis Energy SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (C-306/19), Go Sun Srl and Malby Energy 4 Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia, Reti e Ambiente and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (C-512/19), Fototre Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (C-595/19), and Interporto di Trieste SpA (C-608/20), Soelia SpA (C-609/20) and Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo (C-610/20 and C-611/20) v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (References for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Environment — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16 and 17 — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Energy Charter Treaty — Article 10 — Applicability — Directive 2009/28/EC — Article 3(3)(a) — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Production of electricity from solar photovoltaic installations — Alteration of a support scheme)

21

2022/C 237/27

Case C-464/21: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — QL v Universitat de Barcelona (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector — Clause 2 and Clause 3(1) — Scope — Concept of fixed-term worker)

22

2022/C 237/28

Case C-420/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2021 by Valvis Holding SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2021 in Case T-638/19, Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO — Valvis Holding

23

2022/C 237/29

Case C-761/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-351/20, St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua

23

2022/C 237/30

Case C-762/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-352/20, St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Elephant

23

2022/C 237/31

Case C-1/22 P: Appeal brought on 1 January 2022 by José María Castillejo Oriol against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2021 in Case T-419/21, Castillejo Oriol v Commission

24

2022/C 237/32

Case C-90/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2022 — Gjensidige ADB

24

2022/C 237/33

Case C-100/22 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2022 by KY against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-433/20 KY v Court of Justice of the European Union

25

2022/C 237/34

Case C-112/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 17 February 2022 — Criminal proceedings against CU

25

2022/C 237/35

Case C-129/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 24 February 2022 — EF v Stadt Offenbach am Main

27

2022/C 237/36

Case C-130/22 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2022 by DD against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-703/19, DD v FRA

27

2022/C 237/37

Case C-162/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2022 — A.G. v Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra

A.G.

Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra

28

2022/C 237/38

Case C-178/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 8 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against Unknown individuals

29

2022/C 237/39

Case C-181/22 P: Appeal brought on 9 March 2022 by Nemea Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2021 in Case T-321/17, Niemelä and Others v ECB

30

2022/C 237/40

Case C-182/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2022 — JU v Scalable Capital GmbH

30

2022/C 237/41

Case C-184/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2022 — IK v KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V.

31

2022/C 237/42

Case C-185/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2022 — CM v KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V.

33

2022/C 237/43

Case C-189/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 March 2022 — SO v Scalable Capital GmbH

34

2022/C 237/44

Case C-193/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 March 2022 — TR, UQ v FTI Touristik GmbH

35

2022/C 237/45

Case C-206/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2022 — TF v Sparkasse Südpfalz

36

2022/C 237/46

Case C-218/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2022 — BU v Comune di Copertino

36

2022/C 237/47

Case C-223/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 29 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against ND

37

2022/C 237/48

Case C-227/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Gabrovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 March 2022 — IL v Regionalna direktsia Avtomobilna administratsia Pleven

38

2022/C 237/49

Case C-228/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 1 April 2022 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

38

2022/C 237/50

Case C-234/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 4 April 2022 — Roheline Kogukond MTÜ, Eesti Metsa Abiks MTÜ, Päästame Eesti Metsad MTÜ and Sihtasutus Keskkonnateabe Ühendus v Keskkonnaagentuur

39

2022/C 237/51

Case C-248/22: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 8 April 2022 — Z.K. and M.S. v The Minister for Justice and Equality

40

2022/C 237/52

Case C-249/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 April 2022 — BM v Gebühren Info Service GmbH (GIS)

41

2022/C 237/53

Case C-256/22 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2022 by Pilatus Bank plc against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 February 2022 in Case T-27/19, Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB

41

2022/C 237/54

Case C-291/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 May 2022 by Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2022 in Case T-556/20 D & A Pharma v Commission and EMA

42

General Court

2022/C 237/55

Cases T-335/18, T-338/18 and T-327/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Mubarak and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Egypt — Measures directed against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds — Maintenance of the applicants’ names on the list — Rights of the defence — Obligation on the Council of the European Union to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment)

44

2022/C 237/56

Case T-508/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme implemented by the Government of Gibraltar concerning corporation tax — Tax exemption for interest income and royalties — Advance tax rulings benefiting multinationals — Commission decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Selective advantage — Right to submit comments)

45

2022/C 237/57

Case T-634/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — FC v EUAA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pre-disciplinary proceedings — Suspension, withholding of remuneration and prohibition on access to EUAA’s premises and facilities — OLAF Report — Principle of sound administration — Right to be heard — Principle of impartiality — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Liability — Close link with the claim for annulment)

46

2022/C 237/58

Case T-392/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Flašker v Commission (State aid — Measures granted by Slovenia to a municipal network of dispensing pharmacies — Preliminary examination phase — Decision of the Commission finding no State aid and, possibly, that there is existing aid — Decision adopted without initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Serious difficulties)

47

2022/C 237/59

Case T-425/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — KU v EEAS (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — EEAS staff — Psychological harassment — Administrative investigation — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Reasonable time — Liability)

47

2022/C 237/60

Case T-750/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Correia v EESC (Civil service — EESC staff — Members of the temporary staff — Request for career reconstitution — Rejection of the request — Action for annulment — Proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure — Time limit for lodging a complaint — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Legal certainty — Entitlement to reasonable career prospects — Absence of a right to career constitution — Obligation to carry out a consideration of the comparative merits — Liability — Non-material damage)

48

2022/C 237/61

Case T-68/21: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — QA v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) — Audit report — Language — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Proportionality — Principle of good administration)

49

2022/C 237/62

Case T-208/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Dorit-DFT v EUIPO — Erwin Suter (DORIT) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark DORIT — Earlier national company names — Relative ground for refusal — No use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

49

2022/C 237/63

Case T-219/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Agora Invest v EUIPO — Transportes Maquinaria y Obras (TRAMOSA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TRAMOSA — Earlier EU figurative mark TRAMO, SA TRANSPORTE MAQUINARIA Y OBRAS, S.A. — 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) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

50

2022/C 237/64

Case T-276/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Moio v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (moio.care) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark moio.care — Earlier EU word mark Molicare — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

51

2022/C 237/65

Case T-6/21: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

51

2022/C 237/66

Case T-226/21: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Retail Royalty v EUIPO — Fashion Energy (Representation of an eagle) (European Union trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

52

2022/C 237/67

Case T-265/21: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Sunshine Smile v EUIPO (PlusDental+) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

52

2022/C 237/68

Case T-343/21: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA) (European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

53

2022/C 237/69

Case T-345/21: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA NETWORKS) (European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

54

2022/C 237/70

Case T-797/21: Order of the General Court of 29 March 2022 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXORIGINAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

54

2022/C 237/71

Case T-798/21: Order of the General Court of 29 March 2022 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXFORTE) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

55

2022/C 237/72

Case T-522/21: Action brought on 18 January 2022 — XH v Commission

55

2022/C 237/73

Case T-173/22: Action brought on 30 March 2022 — T-Systems International v Commission

56

2022/C 237/74

Case T-196/22: Action brought on 14 April 2022 — Mariani v Parliament

57

2022/C 237/75

Case T-200/22: Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Poland v Commission

58

2022/C 237/76

Case T-203/22: Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Netherlands v Commission

59

2022/C 237/77

Case T-206/22: Action brought on 20 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council

59

2022/C 237/78

Case T-207/22: Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Mhana v Council

60

2022/C 237/79

Case T-208/22: Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council

61

2022/C 237/80

Case T-209/22: Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council

62

2022/C 237/81

Case T-212/22: Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Prigozhina v Council

62

2022/C 237/82

Case T-217/22: Action brought on 20 April 2022 — Lifestyle Equities v EUIPO — Greenwich Polo Club (GREENWICH POLO CLUB)

63

2022/C 237/83

Case T-218/22: Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)

64

2022/C 237/84

Case T-219/22: Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Wallmax v EUIPO — Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)

65

2022/C 237/85

Case T-220/22: Action brought on 25 April 2022 — CiviBank v ECB

65

2022/C 237/86

Case T-221/22: Action brought on 25 April 2022 — Pharmaselect International v EUIPO — OmniActive Health Technologies (LUTAMAX)

66

2022/C 237/87

Case T-222/22: Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Engineering — Ingegneria Informatica v Commission and REA

67

2022/C 237/88

Case T-228/22: Action brought on 27 April 2022 — Casablanca Clothing v EUIPO — Adrien (CASABLANCA TENNIS CLUB)

68

2022/C 237/89

Case T-231/22: Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover)

69

2022/C 237/90

Case T-232/22: Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (catlover)

69

2022/C 237/91

Case T-233/22: Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Islentyeva v Council

70

2022/C 237/92

Case T-234/22: Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Ismailova v Council

71

2022/C 237/93

Case T-235/22: Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Russian Direct Investment Fund v Council

72

2022/C 237/94

Case T-236/22: Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Intel Corporation v Commission

73

2022/C 237/95

Case T-239/22: Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO)

75

2022/C 237/96

Case T-242/22: Action brought on 3 May 2022 — OmniActive Health Technologies v EUIPO — Pharmaselect International (LUTAMAX)

75

2022/C 237/97

Case T-245/22: Action brought on 4 May 2022 — PGTEX Morocco v Commission

76

2022/C 237/98

Case T-246/22: Action brought on 4 May 2022 — PGTEX Morocco v Commission

77

2022/C 237/99

Case T-253/22: Action brought on 9 May 2022 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)

78

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/1

---

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

(2022/C 237/01)

Last publication

OJ C 222, 7.6.2022

Past publications

OJ C 213, 30.5.2022

OJ C 207, 23.5.2022

OJ C 198, 16.5.2022

OJ C 191, 10.5.2022

OJ C 171, 25.4.2022

OJ C 165, 19.4.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-401/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive (EU) 2019/790 - Article 17(4), point (b), and point (c), in fine - Article 11 and Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom of expression and information - Protection of intellectual property - Obligations imposed on online content-sharing service providers - Prior automatic review (filtering) of content uploaded by users)

(2022/C 237/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Wiącek and J. Sawicka, Agents, and by J. Barski, acting as expert)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin, S. Alonso de León and W.D. Kuzmienko, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Alver, F. Florindo Gijón and D. Kornilaki, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by S. Centeno Huerta and J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, and subsequently by J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, Agents), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères and A. Daniel, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented: initially by M.A. Capela de Carvalho Galaz Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa, P. Salvação Barreto and L. Inez Fernandes, and subsequently by M.A. Capela de Carvalho Galaz Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa and P. Salvação Barreto, Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, S.L. Kalėda, J. Samnadda and B. Sasinowska, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v European Commission, Hyet Sweet SAS

(Case C-666/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulations No 1225/2009 and 2016/1036 - Temporal scope - Article 2(7) - Market economy treatment - Denied - Article 2(10) - Adjustments - Burden of proof - Article 3 - Determination of injury - Duty of care of the European Commission)

(2022/C 237/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and P. Billiet, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and A. Demeneix and, finally, by T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents), Hyet Sweet SAS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Yieh United Steel Corp. v European Commission, Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL

(Case C-79/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2 - Calculation of the normal value - Calculation of the production cost - Production losses - Refusal to deduct the value of recycled scrap - Determination of the normal value on the basis of sales of the like product intended for domestic consumption - Exclusion from the basis of calculation used to determine the normal value of sales on the domestic market of the exporting country where those sales concern products intended for export)

(2022/C 237/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Yieh United Steel Corp. (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by J. F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Demeneix, and subsequently by J.F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, acting as Agents), Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, avocats, and by G. Papaconstantinou, dikigoros)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Yieh United Steel Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Yieh United Steel Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Vinařství U Kapličky s.r.o. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce

(Case C-86/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Wine - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Rules concerning marketing - Article 80 - Oenological practices - Prohibition on marketing - Article 90 - Imports of wine - Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 - Article 43 - V I 1 document - Certificate of production of consignments of wine in accordance with recommended and authorised oenological practices - Probative value - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 89(4) - Penalties - Marketing of wine from a third country - Wine having undergone unauthorised oenological practices - Exoneration from liability - Burden of proof)

(2022/C 237/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vinařství U Kapličky s.r.o.

Defendant: Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 80(2)(a) and (c) and Article 90(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that the certificate appearing in a V I 1 document, drawn up for a consignment of wine imported into the European Union under Article 43 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, according to which that consignment was produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine or authorised by the European Union, is relevant in order to determine whether the consignment complies with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1308/2013, but is not sufficient on its own to establish such compliance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 80(2)(a) and (c) and Article 90(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that the certificate appearing in a V I 1 document, drawn up for a consignment of wine imported into the European Union under Article 43 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, according to which that consignment was produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine or authorised by the European Union, is relevant in order to determine whether the consignment complies with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1308/2013, but is not sufficient on its own to establish such compliance.

| 2. | Article 89(4) 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, read in conjunction with Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that provides that, where a person marketing, in that Member State, a consignment of wine imported from a third country that does not comply with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) or (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 produces a V I 1 document drawn up for that consignment certifying that the consignment has undergone oenological practices recommended and published by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine or authorised by the European Union, the burden of proving the existence of fault on the part of the trader for the infringement of the marketing prohibition provided for in Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 is on the competent authorities of that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 89(4) 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, read in conjunction with Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that provides that, where a person marketing, in that Member State, a consignment of wine imported from a third country that does not comply with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) or (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 produces a V I 1 document drawn up for that consignment certifying that the consignment has undergone oenological practices recommended and published by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine or authorised by the European Union, the burden of proving the existence of fault on the part of the trader for the infringement of the marketing prohibition provided for in Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 is on the competent authorities of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Heiploeg Seafood International BV, Heitrans International BV

(Case C-237/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Articles 3 to 5 - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Exceptions - Insolvency proceedings - ‘Pre-pack’ - Survival of an undertaking - Transfer of (part of) an undertaking following a declaration of insolvency preceded by a pre-pack)

(2022/C 237/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging

Defendant: Heiploeg Seafood International BV, Heitrans International BV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the condition which it lays down, according to which Articles 3 and 4 of that directive are not to apply to the transfer of an undertaking where the transferor is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings ‘instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor’, is satisfied where the transfer of all or part of an undertaking is prepared, prior to the institution of insolvency proceedings with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor and in the course of which that transfer is carried out, in the context of a pre-pack procedure which has as its primary aim to enable, in the insolvency proceedings, a liquidation of the undertaking as a going concern which satisfies to the greatest extent possible the claims of all the creditors and preserves employment as far as possible, provided that that pre-pack procedure is governed by statutory or regulatory provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the condition which it lays down, according to which Articles 3 and 4 of that directive are not to apply to the transfer of an undertaking where the transferor is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings ‘instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor’, is satisfied where the transfer of all or part of an undertaking is prepared, prior to the institution of insolvency proceedings with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor and in the course of which that transfer is carried out, in the context of a pre-pack procedure which has as its primary aim to enable, in the insolvency proceedings, a liquidation of the undertaking as a going concern which satisfies to the greatest extent possible the claims of all the creditors and preserves employment as far as possible, provided that that pre-pack procedure is governed by statutory or regulatory provisions;

| 2. | Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/23 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition which it lays down, according to which Articles 3 and 4 of that directive do not apply to the transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business where the bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings instituted in respect of the transferor ‘are under the supervision of a competent public authority’, is satisfied where the transfer of all or part of an undertaking is prepared in the context of a pre-pack procedure prior to the declaration of insolvency by a ‘prospective insolvency administrator’, under the supervision of a ‘prospective supervisory judge’, and the agreement concerning that transfer is concluded and performed after the declaration of insolvency with a view to the liquidation of the transferor’s assets, provided that that pre-pack procedure is governed by statutory or regulatory provisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/23 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition which it lays down, according to which Articles 3 and 4 of that directive do not apply to the transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business where the bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings instituted in respect of the transferor ‘are under the supervision of a competent public authority’, is satisfied where the transfer of all or part of an undertaking is prepared in the context of a pre-pack procedure prior to the declaration of insolvency by a ‘prospective insolvency administrator’, under the supervision of a ‘prospective supervisory judge’, and the agreement concerning that transfer is concluded and performed after the declaration of insolvency with a view to the liquidation of the transferor’s assets, provided that that pre-pack procedure is governed by statutory or regulatory provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Limited v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

(Case C-319/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 80 - Representation of the data subjects by a not-for-profit association - Representative action brought by a consumer protection association in the absence of a mandate and independently of the infringement of specific rights of a data subject - Action based on the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, the infringement of a consumer protection law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions)

(2022/C 237/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Limited

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 80(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a consumer protection association to bring legal proceedings, in the absence of a mandate conferred on it for that purpose and independently of the infringement of specific rights of the data subjects, against the person allegedly responsible for an infringement of the laws protecting personal data, on the basis of the infringement of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, a breach of a consumer protection law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions, where the data processing concerned is liable to affect the rights that identified or identifiable natural persons derive from that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (C-368/20), Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz (C-369/20)

(Joined Cases C-368/20 and C-369/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Free movement of persons - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Schengen Borders Code - Article 25(4) - Temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders for a maximum total duration of six months - National legislation providing for a number of successive periods of border control resulting in that duration being exceeded - Non-compliance of such legislation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code where the successive periods are based on the same threat or threats - National legislation requiring, on pain of a penalty, a passport or identity card to be presented when the internal border control is carried out - Non-compliance of such an obligation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code when the border control itself is contrary to that provision)

(2022/C 237/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NW

Defendants: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (C-368/20), Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz (C-369/20)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 25(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016, must be interpreted as precluding border control at internal borders from being temporarily reintroduced by a Member State on the basis of Articles 25 and 27 of that code where the duration of its reintroduction exceeds the maximum total duration of six months, set in Article 25(4), and no new threat exists that would justify applying afresh the periods provided for in Article 25. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 25(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016, must be interpreted as precluding border control at internal borders from being temporarily reintroduced by a Member State on the basis of Articles 25 and 27 of that code where the duration of its reintroduction exceeds the maximum total duration of six months, set in Article 25(4), and no new threat exists that would justify applying afresh the periods provided for in Article 25.

| 2. | Article 25(4) of Regulation 2016/399, as amended by Regulation 2016/1624, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation by which a Member State obliges a person, on pain of a penalty, to present a passport or identity card on entering the territory of that Member State via an internal border, when the reintroduction of the internal border control in relation to which that obligation is imposed is contrary to that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 25(4) of Regulation 2016/399, as amended by Regulation 2016/1624, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation by which a Member State obliges a person, on pain of a penalty, to present a passport or identity card on entering the territory of that Member State via an internal border, when the reintroduction of the internal border control in relation to which that obligation is imposed is contrary to that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Gräfendorfer Geflügel- und Tiefkühlfeinkost Produktions GmbH (C-415/20), F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG vertr. d. d. Komplementärin Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH (C-419/20), Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-415/20 and C-419/20), Hauptzollamt Kiel (C-427/20)

(Joined Cases C-415/20, C-419/20 and C-427/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Rights to the repayment or to the payment of sums of money levied or refused by a Member State in breach of EU law - Anti-dumping duties, import duties, export refunds and financial penalties - Concept of ‘breach of EU law’ - Misinterpretation or misapplication of EU law - Finding of a breach of EU law by a Court of the European Union or by a national court - Right to the payment of interest - Period covered by that payment of interest)

(2022/C 237/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gräfendorfer Geflügel- und Tiefkühlfeinkost Produktions GmbH (C-415/20), F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG vertr. d. d. Komplementärin Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH (C-419/20), Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-415/20 and C-419/20), Hauptzollamt Kiel (C-427/20)

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of EU law relating to the rights of persons to obtain the repayment of sums of money the payment of which has been imposed on them by a Member State in breach of EU law and the payment of interest on those sums of money must be interpreted:

| — | first, as meaning that they apply where the sums of money in question correspond, on the one hand, to export refunds which were granted late to a person, after having been refused in breach of EU law, and, on the other hand, to a financial penalty which was imposed on that person as a result of that breach; |
| --- | --- |

—

first, as meaning that they apply where the sums of money in question correspond, on the one hand, to export refunds which were granted late to a person, after having been refused in breach of EU law, and, on the other hand, to a financial penalty which was imposed on that person as a result of that breach;

| — | second, as meaning that they apply where it follows from a decision of the Court or a decision of a national court that the payment of export refunds, a financial penalty, anti-dumping duties or import duties has, as the case may be, been refused or imposed by a national authority on the basis either of an incorrect interpretation of EU law or of an incorrect application of that law, and |
| --- | --- |

—

second, as meaning that they apply where it follows from a decision of the Court or a decision of a national court that the payment of export refunds, a financial penalty, anti-dumping duties or import duties has, as the case may be, been refused or imposed by a national authority on the basis either of an incorrect interpretation of EU law or of an incorrect application of that law, and

| — | third, as precluding national legislation which provides that, where the payment of export refunds, a financial penalty, anti-dumping duties or import duties has, as the case may be, been refused or imposed in breach of EU law, the payment of interest may be made only in respect of the period from the date on which the legal proceedings seeking the payment or repayment of the sum of money in question were brought to the date of the decision given by the court having jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the earlier period. On the other hand, those principles do not, in themselves, preclude such legislation from providing that that payment is to be due only if such proceedings have been brought, provided that this does not have the effect of making the exercise of the rights which persons derive from EU law excessively difficult. |
| --- | --- |

—

third, as precluding national legislation which provides that, where the payment of export refunds, a financial penalty, anti-dumping duties or import duties has, as the case may be, been refused or imposed in breach of EU law, the payment of interest may be made only in respect of the period from the date on which the legal proceedings seeking the payment or repayment of the sum of money in question were brought to the date of the decision given by the court having jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the earlier period. On the other hand, those principles do not, in themselves, preclude such legislation from providing that that payment is to be due only if such proceedings have been brought, provided that this does not have the effect of making the exercise of the rights which persons derive from EU law excessively difficult.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 7.12.2020.

OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-510/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Environment - Directive 2008/56/EC - Marine environmental policy - Article 5 - Marine strategies - Article 17(2) and (3) - Failure to review, within the time limits, the initial assessment, the determination of good environmental status and the environmental targets - Failure to send to the European Commission, within the time limts, details of any updates made following the reviews)

(2022/C 237/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Mitova, L. Zaharieva and T. Tsingileva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed time limits, first, to review in a coordinated manner, as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), the initial assessment and the determination of good environmental status, and, secondly, to send to the European Commission details of the updates made following those reviews, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(2)(a) and (b) and Article 17(3) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed time limits, first, to review in a coordinated manner, as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), the initial assessment and the determination of good environmental status, and, secondly, to send to the European Commission details of the updates made following those reviews, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(2)(a) and (b) and Article 17(3) of that directive.

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

2.

Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

(Case C-531/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 3 - General obligation concerning the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights - Article 14 - Concept of ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs’ - Consultation of a patent lawyer - Absence of opportunity for the national court to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party)

(2022/C 237/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NovaText GmbH

Defendant: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 14 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 national legislation or an interpretation thereof which does not allow the court before which an action is brought under that directive to take due account, in each case brought before it, of its specific characteristics for the purposes of assessing whether the legal costs incurred by the successful party are reasonable and proportionate.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Koch Media GmbH v FU

(Case C-559/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 14 - Concepts of ‘legal costs’ and ‘other expenses’ - Warning notice in order to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights out of court - Lawyers’ fees - Classification - National provision limiting the amount of those costs recoverable under certain conditions)

(2022/C 237/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Koch Media GmbH

Defendant: FU

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is to be interpreted as meaning that the expenses incurred by a holder of intellectual property rights in respect of his or her representation by a lawyer in order to ensure that those rights are enforced out of court, such as the costs of giving warning notice, are covered by the concept of ‘other expenses’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is to be interpreted as meaning that the expenses incurred by a holder of intellectual property rights in respect of his or her representation by a lawyer in order to ensure that those rights are enforced out of court, such as the costs of giving warning notice, are covered by the concept of ‘other expenses’ within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which provides that, in a situation where the infringement of an intellectual property right has been committed by a natural person outside his or her trade or profession, the reimbursement of ‘other expenses’ referred to in that provision, which the rightholder may claim, is calculated on a flat-rate basis of the value in dispute limited by that provision, unless the national court considers that, in view of the specific characteristics of the case before it, the application of such a limitation is unfair. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which provides that, in a situation where the infringement of an intellectual property right has been committed by a natural person outside his or her trade or profession, the reimbursement of ‘other expenses’ referred to in that provision, which the rightholder may claim, is calculated on a flat-rate basis of the value in dispute limited by that provision, unless the national court considers that, in view of the specific characteristics of the case before it, the application of such a limitation is unfair.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Happy Education SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-612/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Exemptions related to children’s or young people’s education, school or university education - Supply of educational services supplementing the school curriculum - Private law body providing those services for commercial purposes)

(2022/C 237/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Happy Education SRL

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘organisation recognised as having similar objects’ to those of an educational body governed by public law, for the purposes of that provision, does not cover a private entity which carries out teaching activities in the public interest consisting of, inter alia, the organisation of activities supplementing the school curriculum, such as homework support classes, educational programmes and foreign language classes, and which has obtained authorisation from the National Trade Register Office in the form of the attribution of the CAEN code 8559 — ‘Other education n.e.c.’, within the meaning of the Classification of National Economic Activities, where that entity does not, in any event, satisfy the conditions under national law for obtaining such recognition.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

(Case C-637/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Common system of value added tax - Article 30a(1) - Concept of ‘voucher’ - Article 30a(3) - Concept of ‘“multi-purpose” voucher’ - Sale of a card entitling the cardholder to a number of tourist services for a limited period)

(2022/C 237/14)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Skatteverket

Respondent: DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 30a of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that an instrument which gives the bearer thereof the right to benefit from various services at a given place, for a limited period and up to a certain amount, may constitute a ‘voucher’ within the meaning of Article 30a(1) of that directive, even if, on account of the limited validity period of that instrument, an average consumer cannot benefit from all the services offered. That instrument constitutes a ‘multi-purpose voucher’ within the meaning of Article 30a(3) of that directive, since the value added tax due on those services is not known at the time of issuance of that instrument.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Caruter s.r.l. v S.R.R. Messina Provincia S.c.P.A. and Others

(Case C-642/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Public procurement - Article 63 - Reliance by a group of economic operators on the capacities of other entities - Possibility for the contracting authority to require that certain critical tasks be performed by a participant of that group - National legislation stipulating that the undertaking representing that group must satisfy the majority of the criteria and perform the majority of the services)

(2022/C 237/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caruter s.r.l.

Defendants: S.R.R. Messina Provincia SCpA, Comune di Basicò, Comune di Falcone, Comune di Fondachelli Fantina, Comune di Gioiosa Marea, Comune di Librizzi, Comune di Mazzarrà Sant’Andrea, Comune di Montagnareale, Comune di Oliveri, Comune di Piraino, Comune di San Piero Patti, Comune di Sant’Angelo di Brolo, Regione Siciliana — Urega — Ufficio regionale espletamento gare d’appalti lavori pubblici Messina, Regione Siciliana — Assessorato regionale delle infrastrutture e della mobilità

Interveners: Ditta individuale Pippo Pizzo, Onofaro Antonino Srl, Gial Plast Srl, Colombo Biagio Srl,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an undertaking representing a group of economic operators participating in a public procurement procedure must satisfy the majority of the criteria laid down in the contract notice and perform the majority of the services specified in that contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Airbnb Ireland UC v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

(Case C-674/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market - Article 114(2) TFEU - Exclusion of fiscal provisions - Directive 2000/31/EC - Information society services - Electronic commerce - Online property rental platform - Article 1(5)(a) - Exclusion of the field of taxation - Definition - Regional legislation concerning a tax on tourist accommodation establishments - Provision requiring intermediaries to provide, on a written request, certain particulars concerning the operation of those establishments to the tax authority with the aim of identifying persons liable for that tax - Article 56 TFEU - No discrimination - No restriction)

(2022/C 237/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Airbnb Ireland UC

Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | A provision of the tax legislation of a Member State requiring intermediaries, in respect of tourist accommodation establishments that are located in a region of that Member State and for which they act as intermediary or carry on a promotion strategy, to provide the regional tax authorities, on the latter’s written request, with the particulars of the operator and the details of the tourist accommodation establishments, as well as the number of overnight stays and of accommodation units operated during the past year, must be regarded as being indissociable, as regards its nature, from the legislation of which it forms part and, accordingly, falls within the ‘field of taxation’ which is expressly excluded from the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

A provision of the tax legislation of a Member State requiring intermediaries, in respect of tourist accommodation establishments that are located in a region of that Member State and for which they act as intermediary or carry on a promotion strategy, to provide the regional tax authorities, on the latter’s written request, with the particulars of the operator and the details of the tourist accommodation establishments, as well as the number of overnight stays and of accommodation units operated during the past year, must be regarded as being indissociable, as regards its nature, from the legislation of which it forms part and, accordingly, falls within the ‘field of taxation’ which is expressly excluded from the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’).

| 2. | Legislation which imposes an obligation on providers of property intermediation services, irrespective of their place of establishment and the manner in which they mediate, in respect of tourist accommodation establishments that are located in a region of the Member State concerned and for which they act as intermediary or carry on a promotion strategy, to provide the regional tax authorities, on the latter’s written request, with the particulars of the operator and the details of the tourist accommodation establishments, as well as the number of overnight stays and of accommodation units operated during the past year, does not contravene the prohibition laid down in Article 56 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Legislation which imposes an obligation on providers of property intermediation services, irrespective of their place of establishment and the manner in which they mediate, in respect of tourist accommodation establishments that are located in a region of the Member State concerned and for which they act as intermediary or carry on a promotion strategy, to provide the regional tax authorities, on the latter’s written request, with the particulars of the operator and the details of the tourist accommodation establishments, as well as the number of overnight stays and of accommodation units operated during the past year, does not contravene the prohibition laid down in Article 56 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-44/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 9(1) - European patent - Interim measures - Power of national judicial authorities to issue an interlocutory injunction to prevent an imminent infringement of an intellectual property right - National case-law dismissing applications for interim measures where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)

(2022/C 237/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(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 national case-law under which applications for interim relief for patent infringement must, in principle, be dismissed where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘PRODEX’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-72/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Subheading 4418 20 - Scope - Doors and their frames and thresholds - MDF panels and mouldings - First sentence of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature - Incomplete or unfinished article - Concept)

(2022/C 237/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘PRODEX’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 44180 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, read in conjunction with the first sentence of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of that nomenclature, in Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in its version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as covering, as separate articles, goods described as wooden panels and mouldings, the profile and decorative finish of which objectively indicate that they are intended for the manufacture of door frames and thresholds, even if incomplete or unfinished, provided that those goods have undergone working which renders them exclusively usable as such and that they thus have the essential characteristics of finished articles.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León v Delia

(Case C-86/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Equal treatment - National system for the recognition of health professionals’ career progression - Failure to take professional experience gained in another Member State’s health services into consideration - Barrier)

(2022/C 237/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León

Defendant: Delia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the recognition of career progression within the health service of a Member State which prevents his or her professional experience gained within a public health service of another Member State from being taken into account for the purposes of calculating length of service, unless the restriction on freedom of movement for workers included in that legislation serves to fulfil an objective in the general interest, makes it possible to ensure the attainment of that objective, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

(Case C-89/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food law - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs - Article 1 - Annex I - Fresh poultry meat - Checks by the competent national authorities for the presence of the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of that annex - Checks for the presence of other pathogenic microorganisms - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 14(8) - Discretion of the national authorities - Scope)

(2022/C 237/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Romega’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011, read in conjunction with Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of a Member State may regard as unsafe within the meaning of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 178/2002 the food category consisting in fresh poultry meat in which pathogenic microorganisms other than the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005 have been detected.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — ‘Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010’ EOOD (C-160/21), ‘Agro — eko 2013’ EOOD (C-217/21) v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

(Joined Cases C-160/21 and C-217/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Payments to beneficiaries - Article 75 - Time limit for payment - Compliance - None - Tacit refusal of the application for aid)

(2022/C 237/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010’ EOOD (C-160/21), ‘Agro — eko 2013’ EOOD (C-217/21)

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 75(1) 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, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament of the Council of 13 December 2017, must be interpreted as meaning that failure by the paying agency of a Member State to pay, before the end of the time limit set down in that provision, aid applied for by a farmer, should not be regarded as constituting a tacit decision to reject the aid application in question, irrespective of whether the farmer concerned has or has not been informed of any additional checks which would justify such an overrun of that time limit.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘Piltenes meži’ SIA v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-251/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Support for rural development by the EAFRD - Article 30 - Natura 2000 payments - Scope - Application for aid in respect of a micro-reserve created in a forest that is not part of the Natura 2000 network, with the purpose of protecting a species of wild bird - Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 - Block exemption for certain types of aid to the agriculture and forestry sectors - Application to aid co-financed by means of EU resources - No application to undertakings in difficulty)

(2022/C 237/22)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Piltenes meži’ SIA

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as meaning, in particular taking account of Article 30(6), that aid applied for in respect of a micro-reserve, created in a forest in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, falls within the scope of Article 30; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as meaning, in particular taking account of Article 30(6), that aid applied for in respect of a micro-reserve, created in a forest in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, falls within the scope of Article 30;

| 2. | Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that aid applied for on the basis of Regulation No 1305/2013, in respect of a micro-reserve created in a forest in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147, by an undertaking in difficulty, within the meaning of Article 2(14) of Regulation No 702/2014, cannot be declared compatible with the internal market under that latter regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that aid applied for on the basis of Regulation No 1305/2013, in respect of a micro-reserve created in a forest in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147, by an undertaking in difficulty, within the meaning of Article 2(14) of Regulation No 702/2014, cannot be declared compatible with the internal market under that latter regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Secrétariat général de l’Enseignement catholique ASBL (SeGEC) and Others v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN), Banque nationale de Belgique

(Case C-277/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 - European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union - Annex A, paragraph 20.15 - Control exercised by an institute of national accounts over the organising authorities of educational establishments constituted in the form of non-profit institutions - Educational establishments receiving public financing and enjoying freedom of education guaranteed by the Constitution - Annex A, paragraph 20.15, second sentence - Concept of ‘public intervention in the form of general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity’ - Scope - Annex A, paragraph 20.15, first sentence - Annex A, paragraph 2.39(b), paragraph 20.15(b) and paragraph 20.309(h) - Concept of ‘excessive regulation’ - Scope)

(2022/C 237/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Secrétariat général de l’Enseignement catholique ASBL (SeGEC), Fédération des Établissements libres subventionnés indépendants ASBL (FELSI), Groupe scolaire Don Bosco à Woluwe-Saint-Lambert ASBL, École fondamentale libre de Chênée ASBL, Collège Saint-Guibert de Gembloux ASBL, Collège Saint-Benoit de Maredsous ASBL, Pouvoir organisateur des Centres PMS libres à Woluwe ASBL

Defendants: Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN), Banque nationale de Belgique

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Paragraph 20.309(h) of Annex A to Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union, read in conjunction with paragraph 2.39(b) and paragraph 20.15(b) of that annex, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘excessive regulation’ covers national regulations applying to non-profit institutions (NPIs) active in the field of education which, while being subsidised by the competent national government, enjoy freedom of education guaranteed by the Constitution, where those regulations confer on that government the task or right:






  — | to approve curricula, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Paragraph 20.309(h) of Annex A to Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union, read in conjunction with paragraph 2.39(b) and paragraph 20.15(b) of that annex, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘excessive regulation’ covers national regulations applying to non-profit institutions (NPIs) active in the field of education which, while being subsidised by the competent national government, enjoy freedom of education guaranteed by the Constitution, where those regulations confer on that government the task or right:

—

to approve curricula,

| — | to determine both the structure of education and priority and specific duties, to institute monitoring of the conditions for pupil enrolment and exclusion, decisions of class councils and financial participation, to arrange for schools to be grouped into structured networks and to require educational, teaching and institutional plans to be drawn up and activity reports to be delivered, |
| --- | --- |

—

to determine both the structure of education and priority and specific duties, to institute monitoring of the conditions for pupil enrolment and exclusion, decisions of class councils and financial participation, to arrange for schools to be grouped into structured networks and to require educational, teaching and institutional plans to be drawn up and activity reports to be delivered,

| — | to organise checks and inspections relating specifically to subjects taught, academic level and implementation of the language laws, but excluding teaching methods, and |
| --- | --- |

—

to organise checks and inspections relating specifically to subjects taught, academic level and implementation of the language laws, but excluding teaching methods, and

| — | to impose a minimum number of pupils per class, stream, level or other subdivision, unless an exemption is granted by a minister, |
| --- | --- |

—

to impose a minimum number of pupils per class, stream, level or other subdivision, unless an exemption is granted by a minister,

in so far as those tasks or rights are sufficiently intrusive to determine effectively the general policy or programme of the NPIs concerned by enabling the exercise on a lasting and continuous basis of an actual and substantial influence over the very determination and implementation of the objectives of those NPIs, their activities and their operating aspects, as well as the strategic approaches and guidelines which those NPIs are to follow when pursuing their activities, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;

| 2. | The second sentence of paragraph 20.15 of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity’ does not cover national regulations which constitute a legal system applicable only to the staff of non-profit institutions active in the field of education which are financed by government. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second sentence of paragraph 20.15 of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity’ does not cover national regulations which constitute a legal system applicable only to the staff of non-profit institutions active in the field of education which are financed by government.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-286/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for micro particles (PM10) in certain zones in France - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)

(2022/C 237/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: T. Stéhelin and W. Zemamta, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the French Republic, by not having ensured that the daily limit value applicable to concentrations of microparticles (PM10) was not systematically and persistently exceeded, from 1 January 2005 to 2019 inclusive, in the Paris agglomeration and quality zone (FR04A01/FR11ZAG01) and, from 1 January 2005 to 2016 inclusive, with the exception of 2008, in the Martinique/Fort-de-France agglomeration and quality zone (FR39N10/FR02ZAR01), failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Annex XI of that directive, and
  by not having ensured that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period of that limit value could be kept as short as possible in those two zones, from 11 June 2010, failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Annex XV of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the French Republic, by not having ensured that the daily limit value applicable to concentrations of microparticles (PM10) was not systematically and persistently exceeded, from 1 January 2005 to 2019 inclusive, in the Paris agglomeration and quality zone (FR04A01/FR11ZAG01) and, from 1 January 2005 to 2016 inclusive, with the exception of 2008, in the Martinique/Fort-de-France agglomeration and quality zone (FR39N10/FR02ZAR01), failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Annex XI of that directive, and

by not having ensured that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period of that limit value could be kept as short as possible in those two zones, from 11 June 2010, failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Annex XV of that directive;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — C and CD v Syyttäjä

(Case C-804/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 23(3) - Requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority - Article 6(2) - Police services - Not included - Force majeure - Concept - Legal obstacles to surrender - Legal actions brought by the requested person - Application for international protection - Not included - Article 23(5) - Expiry of the time limits provided for surrender - Consequences - Release - Obligation to adopt any other measure necessary to prevent absconding)

(2022/C 237/25)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: C and CD

Defendant: Syyttäjä

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 23(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of force majeure does not extend to legal obstacles to surrender which arise from legal actions brought by the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant and are based on the law of the executing Member State, in cases where the final decision on surrender has been adopted by the executing judicial authority in accordance with Article 15(1) of that framework decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 23(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of force majeure does not extend to legal obstacles to surrender which arise from legal actions brought by the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant and are based on the law of the executing Member State, in cases where the final decision on surrender has been adopted by the executing judicial authority in accordance with Article 15(1) of that framework decision.

| 2. | Article 23(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in that provision, is not met where the executing Member State makes a police service responsible for ascertaining whether there is a situation of force majeure and whether the necessary conditions for the continued detention of the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant are satisfied and for deciding, as the case may be, on a new surrender date, even if that person is entitled to apply to the executing judicial authority at any time for a decision on the abovementioned matters.
  Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the time limits referred to in Article 23(2) to (4) must be regarded as having expired, with the result that that person must be released, where the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in Article 23(3) of that framework decision, has not been met. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 23(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in that provision, is not met where the executing Member State makes a police service responsible for ascertaining whether there is a situation of force majeure and whether the necessary conditions for the continued detention of the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant are satisfied and for deciding, as the case may be, on a new surrender date, even if that person is entitled to apply to the executing judicial authority at any time for a decision on the abovementioned matters.

Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the time limits referred to in Article 23(2) to (4) must be regarded as having expired, with the result that that person must be released, where the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in Article 23(3) of that framework decision, has not been met.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/21

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Milis Energy SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (C-306/19), Go Sun Srl and Malby Energy 4 Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia, Reti e Ambiente and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (C-512/19), Fototre Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (C-595/19), and Interporto di Trieste SpA (C-608/20), Soelia SpA (C-609/20) and Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo (C-610/20 and C-611/20) v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

(Joined Cases C-306/19, C-512/19, C-595/19 and C-608/20 to C-611/20) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Environment - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16 and 17 - Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations - Energy Charter Treaty - Article 10 - Applicability - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 3(3)(a) - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Production of electricity from solar photovoltaic installations - Alteration of a support scheme)

(2022/C 237/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-306/19)

Applicant: Milis Energy SpA

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

(Case C-512/19)

Applicants: Go Sun Srl and Malby Energy 4 Srl

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia, Reti e Ambiente and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

(Case C-595/19)

Applicant: Fototre Srl

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

(Cases C-608/20, C-609/20, C-610/20 and C-611/20)

Applicants: Interporto di Trieste SpA (C-608/20), Soelia SpA (C-609/20) and Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo (C-610/20 and C-611/20)

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA,

Operative part of the order

Subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court taking into account all the relevant factors, Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, as well as Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the reduction or delay of the payment of incentives for energy produced by solar photovoltaic installations which were previously granted by administrative decisions and confirmed by special agreements concluded between the operators of those installations and a public company, where that legislation concerns incentives for which provision has previously been made but which are not yet due.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/22

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — QL v Universitat de Barcelona

(Case C-464/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector - Clause 2 and Clause 3(1) - Scope - Concept of ‘fixed-term worker’)

(2022/C 237/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QL

Defendant: Universitat de Barcelona

Operative part of the order

Clause 2 and Clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as meaning that a worker bound to his or her public sector employer by successive fixed-term contracts and whose employment relationship may be reclassified, as a penalty, as a ‘non-permanent contract of indefinite duration’, falls within the scope of that framework agreement.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 29.7.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/23

---

Appeal brought on 9 July 2021 by Valvis Holding SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2021 in Case T-638/19, Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO — Valvis Holding

(Case C-420/21 P)

(2022/C 237/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Valvis Holding SA (represented by: M. Stănescu, D. Bogdan, G. Bozocea, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 29 April 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and that Valvis Holding SA shall bear its own costs.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/23

---

Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-351/20, St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua

(Case C-761/21 P)

(2022/C 237/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Raisioaqua Oy

By order of 31 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH should bear its own costs.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/23

---

Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-352/20, St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Elephant

(Case C-762/21 P)

(2022/C 237/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Preduzeće za proizvodnju, unutrašnju i spoljnu trgovinu Elephant Co. d.o.o.

By order of 31 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH should bear its own costs.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/24

---

Appeal brought on 1 January 2022 by José María Castillejo Oriol against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2021 in Case T-419/21, Castillejo Oriol v Commission

(Case C-1/22 P)

(2022/C 237/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: José María Castillejo Oriol (represented by: Jover Padró, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 2 May 2022, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded, and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2022 — ‘Gjensidige’ ADB

(Case C-90/22)

(2022/C 237/32)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation:‘Gjensidige’ ADB

Other parties:‘Rhenus Logistics’ UAB, ‘ACC Distribution’ UAB

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 71 of Regulation No 1215/2012, (1) having regard to Articles 25, 29 and 31 and recitals 21 and 22 thereof, be interpreted as permitting the application of Article 31 of the CMR Convention also in cases where a dispute falling within the scope of both those legal instruments is the subject of an agreement conferring jurisdiction? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 71 of Regulation No 1215/2012, (1) having regard to Articles 25, 29 and 31 and recitals 21 and 22 thereof, be interpreted as permitting the application of Article 31 of the CMR Convention also in cases where a dispute falling within the scope of both those legal instruments is the subject of an agreement conferring jurisdiction?

| 2. | Having regard to the legislature’s intention to strengthen the protection of agreements conferring jurisdiction in the European Union, can Article 45(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted more broadly, as covering not only Section 6 of Chapter II of that regulation but also Section 7 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Having regard to the legislature’s intention to strengthen the protection of agreements conferring jurisdiction in the European Union, can Article 45(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted more broadly, as covering not only Section 6 of Chapter II of that regulation but also Section 7 thereof?

| 3. | After assessment of the specific features of the situation and the resulting legal consequences, can the term ‘public policy’ used in Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as covering the ground for deciding not to recognise a judgment of another Member State where the application of a specialised convention, such as the CMR Convention, creates a legal situation in which both the agreement conferring jurisdiction and the agreement on the applicable law are not observed in the same case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

After assessment of the specific features of the situation and the resulting legal consequences, can the term ‘public policy’ used in Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as covering the ground for deciding not to recognise a judgment of another Member State where the application of a specialised convention, such as the CMR Convention, creates a legal situation in which both the agreement conferring jurisdiction and the agreement on the applicable law are not observed in the same case?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/25

---

Appeal brought on 13 February 2022 by KY against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-433/20 KY v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-100/22 P)

(2022/C 237/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: KY (represented by: N. Maes, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 in Case T-433/20; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 in Case T-433/20;

| — | giving judgement itself: |
| --- | --- |

—

giving judgement itself:

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

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision to reject the appellant’s request for repayment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to reject the appellant’s request for repayment;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that, in examining its action for annulment, the General Court made a number of errors of law, arising mainly from confusion between an action for unjust enrichment and a hypothetical challenge of rules as regards the award of pension rights.

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law, in that the General Court found the existence of a legal basis for unjust enrichment, as well as a lack of reasoning for the contested decision.

The ground of appeal alleges an error of law on the part of the General Court as regards the application of the minimum subsistence figure rule.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court found an absence of impoverishment.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges infringement of EU law, the General Court having failed to take account of the case-law arising from the judgment of 18 September 2018, Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union (T-702/16 P, EU:T:2018:557, paragraphs 104 to 106).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 17 February 2022 — Criminal proceedings against CU

(Case C-112/22)

(2022/C 237/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Criminal proceedings against

CU

Questions referred

| 1. | Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, (1) Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, (2) Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, (3) Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, converted into law and amended by Law No 26 of 28 March 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it makes access to basic income subject to the condition relating to residence in Italy for at least ten years (the final two of which, as at the time the application is made and for the entire duration of the benefit, must be consecutive), thus affording treatment to Italian nationals, EU nationals with a right of residence or permanent residence, or non-EU long-term residents who have been resident for less than ten years or for ten years, the final two of which were not consecutive, which is less favourable than that accorded to the same categories who have been resident for ten years, the final two of which were consecutive?
  If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, (1) Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, (2) Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, (3) Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, converted into law and amended by Law No 26 of 28 March 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it makes access to basic income subject to the condition relating to residence in Italy for at least ten years (the final two of which, as at the time the application is made and for the entire duration of the benefit, must be consecutive), thus affording treatment to Italian nationals, EU nationals with a right of residence or permanent residence, or non-EU long-term residents who have been resident for less than ten years or for ten years, the final two of which were not consecutive, which is less favourable than that accorded to the same categories who have been resident for ten years, the final two of which were consecutive?

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative:

| 2. | Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, converted into law and amended by Law No 26 of 28 March 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it affords different treatment to long-term residents, who can acquire a permanent right of residence in an EU State after residing for five years in the host Member State, and long-term residents who have been resident for ten years, the final two of which were consecutive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, converted into law and amended by Law No 26 of 28 March 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it affords different treatment to long-term residents, who can acquire a permanent right of residence in an EU State after residing for five years in the host Member State, and long-term residents who have been resident for ten years, the final two of which were consecutive?

| 3. | Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109 and Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, which requires Italian nationals, EU nationals and non-EU nationals to be resident for ten years (the final two of which must be consecutive) in order to access basic income benefit? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109 and Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, which requires Italian nationals, EU nationals and non-EU nationals to be resident for ten years (the final two of which must be consecutive) in order to access basic income benefit?

| 4. | Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it, for the purposes of obtaining basic income benefit, requires Italian nationals, EU nationals and non-EU nationals to declare that they have resided in Italy for ten years, the final two of which must be consecutive, subjecting false declaration to severe consequences of criminal relevance? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it, for the purposes of obtaining basic income benefit, requires Italian nationals, EU nationals and non-EU nationals to declare that they have resided in Italy for ten years, the final two of which must be consecutive, subjecting false declaration to severe consequences of criminal relevance?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

(3)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 24 February 2022 — EF v Stadt Offenbach am Main

(Case C-129/22)

(2022/C 237/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EF

Defendant: Stadt Offenbach am Main

Questions referred

| 1. | Can a third-country national who has been granted long-term resident status under Directive 2003/109/EC (1) by a first Member State (in casu, Italy) require the second Member State (in casu, Germany) to renew a residence permit issued to him or her in implementation of Article 14 et seq. of Directive 2003/109/EC without providing evidence of the continuing existence of long-term resident status?
  If that question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can a third-country national who has been granted long-term resident status under Directive 2003/109/EC (1) by a first Member State (in casu, Italy) require the second Member State (in casu, Germany) to renew a residence permit issued to him or her in implementation of Article 14 et seq. of Directive 2003/109/EC without providing evidence of the continuing existence of long-term resident status?

If that question is answered in the negative:

| 2. | Must long-term resident status be presumed to continue to exist in the second Member State for the sole reason that the third-country national holds a long-term resident’s EU residence permit issued by the first Member State for an unlimited period, even though he or she has not resided for six years in the territory of the Member State which granted him or her that status?
  If that question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must long-term resident status be presumed to continue to exist in the second Member State for the sole reason that the third-country national holds a long-term resident’s EU residence permit issued by the first Member State for an unlimited period, even though he or she has not resided for six years in the territory of the Member State which granted him or her that status?

If that question is answered in the negative:

| 3. | Is the second Member State empowered, in the context of the renewal of the residence permit, to assess whether long-term resident status has been lost in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 9(4) of Directive 2003/109/EC and to refuse renewal where appropriate, or is the first Member State competent to determine the subsequent loss of that status?
  If that question is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the second Member State empowered, in the context of the renewal of the residence permit, to assess whether long-term resident status has been lost in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 9(4) of Directive 2003/109/EC and to refuse renewal where appropriate, or is the first Member State competent to determine the subsequent loss of that status?

If that question is answered in the affirmative:

| 4. | In that case, does the examination of the ground for loss of status under the second subparagraph of Article 9(4) of Directive 2003/109/EC need to be transposed into national law in such a way that the constituent facts leading to loss of long-term resident status in the first Member State are specified, or is it sufficient for national law to provide, without referring specifically to the directive, that the second Member State may refuse the residence permit ‘if the foreign national loses his or her long-term resident status in another Member State of the European Union’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In that case, does the examination of the ground for loss of status under the second subparagraph of Article 9(4) of Directive 2003/109/EC need to be transposed into national law in such a way that the constituent facts leading to loss of long-term resident status in the first Member State are specified, or is it sufficient for national law to provide, without referring specifically to the directive, that the second Member State may refuse the residence permit ‘if the foreign national loses his or her long-term resident status in another Member State of the European Union’?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/27

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2022 by DD against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-703/19, DD v FRA

(Case C-130/22 P)

(2022/C 237/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DD (represented by: N. Lorenz, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | consequently:






  — | grant the Appellant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in the application, estimated ex aequo et bono at 50 000 €; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently:

—

grant the Appellant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in the application, estimated ex aequo et bono at 50 000 €;

| — | annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 21 December 2018 rejecting the Appellant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 21 December 2018 rejecting the Appellant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 24 June 2019 rejecting the Appellant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 24 June 2019 rejecting the Appellant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the Appellant raises the following pleas and principal arguments in relation to the judgment under appeal:

| 1. | Error of law, failure to establish the legally relevant facts, incomplete examination of the facts and distortion of evidence regarding the statement of facts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Error of law, failure to establish the legally relevant facts, incomplete examination of the facts and distortion of evidence regarding the statement of facts.

| 2. | Error of law, distortion of evidence, insufficient reasoning, violation of the principle of legal certainty and manifest error of appraisal regarding the first plea of unlawfulness. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, insufficient reasoning, violation of the principle of legal certainty and manifest error of appraisal regarding the first plea of unlawfulness.

| 3. | Error of law, distortion of evidence, incomplete legal examination of the relevant facts, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning regarding the second plea of unlawfulness. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, incomplete legal examination of the relevant facts, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning regarding the second plea of unlawfulness.

| 4. | Error of law, incomplete examination of the plea and insufficient reasoning regarding the fifth plea of unlawfulness. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Error of law, incomplete examination of the plea and insufficient reasoning regarding the fifth plea of unlawfulness.

| 5. | Error of law, distortion of evidence, incomplete examination of the facts regarding the sixth plea of unlawfulness. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, incomplete examination of the facts regarding the sixth plea of unlawfulness.

| 6. | Error of law, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning, plea that evidence used was not lawfully obtained or used regarding the eighth head of unlawfulness. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Error of law, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning, plea that evidence used was not lawfully obtained or used regarding the eighth head of unlawfulness.

| 7. | Error of law, distortion of evidence, incorrect legal classification of facts, insufficient reasoning regarding the ninth plea of unlawfulness. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, incorrect legal classification of facts, insufficient reasoning regarding the ninth plea of unlawfulness.

| 8. | Error of law, incomplete examination of the facts, insufficient reasoning and violation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding the section on actual damage alleged and causal link. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Error of law, incomplete examination of the facts, insufficient reasoning and violation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding the section on actual damage alleged and causal link.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2022 — A.G. v Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra

(Case C-162/22)

(2022/C 237/37)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A.G.

Other party: Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra

Question referred

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, read in conjunction with Articles 7, 8, 11 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as prohibiting the competent public authorities from using data retained by providers of electronic communications services which may provide information on the data of, and communications made by, a user of a means of electronic communications, in investigations into corruption-related misconduct in office, irrespective of whether access to those data has been granted, in the particular case, for the purposes of combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 8 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against Unknown individuals

(Case C-178/22)

(2022/C 237/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bolzano

Party to the main proceedings

Unknown individuals

Question referred

Does Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 (1) preclude a provision of national law such as that contained in Article 132 of Legislative Decree No 196 of 30 June 2003 (the Privacy Code), paragraph 3 of which was amended by Decree-Law No 132 of 30 September 2021, converted, with amendments, into Law No 178 of 23 November 2021 and, in its current version, provides:

| 3. | Within the retention period laid down by law, if there is sufficient evidence of the commission of an offence for which the law prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment or a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years, determined in accordance with Article 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or of an offence of threatening and harassing or disturbing persons by means of the telephone, where the threat or disturbance is serious, the data may, if relevant to establishing the facts, be acquired with the prior authorisation of the court, by way of reasoned order, at the request of the Public Prosecutor or upon an application by the legal representative of the accused, of the person under investigation, of the injured party or of any other private party’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

Within the retention period laid down by law, if there is sufficient evidence of the commission of an offence for which the law prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment or a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years, determined in accordance with Article 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or of an offence of threatening and harassing or disturbing persons by means of the telephone, where the threat or disturbance is serious, the data may, if relevant to establishing the facts, be acquired with the prior authorisation of the court, by way of reasoned order, at the request of the Public Prosecutor or upon an application by the legal representative of the accused, of the person under investigation, of the injured party or of any other private party’

---

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

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/30

---

Appeal brought on 9 March 2022 by Nemea Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2021 in Case T-321/17, Niemelä and Others v ECB

(Case C-181/22 P)

(2022/C 237/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nemea Bank plc (represented by: A. Meriläinen, asianajaja)

Other parties to the proceedings: Heikki Niemelä, Mika Lehto, Nemea plc, Nevestor SA, European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court to be properly adjudicated, but to a different chamber with an entirely different composition of judges, given the bias and non-respect of the Appellant’s fundamental rights by the chamber having issued the said order, and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court to be properly adjudicated, but to a different chamber with an entirely different composition of judges, given the bias and non-respect of the Appellant’s fundamental rights by the chamber having issued the said order, and

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

—

order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law by erroneously assuming that there is no need to adjudicate in case T-321/17, erroneously failed to take into consideration that the purported effect ex tunc of the ECB decision of 30 June 2017 violated Art. 263 TFEU and erroneously assumed that the Appellant has no interest in the annulment of the ECB decision of license withdrawal of 23 March 2017.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law with respect to numerous infringements of essential procedural requirements.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into consideration the violation of the Appellant’s rights pursuant to Art. 47 of the Charter prior to the commencement of the procedure and the continuing lack of an effective representation of the Appellant during the proceedings.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into consideration the violation of the Appellant’s rights pursuant to Art. 41 of the Charter in deciding the application for damages to be inadmissible.

Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law by failing to take into consideration the Appellant’s rights provided by the Art. 340 TFEU when deciding that the application for damages is inadmissible.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2022 — JU v Scalable Capital GmbH

(Case C-182/22)

(2022/C 237/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JU

Defendant: Scalable Capital GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the right to compensation, including the determination of the amount of that compensation, does not have a punitive character, in particular, that it has no general or specific dissuasive function, but a purely compensatory function and, in some instances, a satisfaction function? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the right to compensation, including the determination of the amount of that compensation, does not have a punitive character, in particular, that it has no general or specific dissuasive function, but a purely compensatory function and, in some instances, a satisfaction function?

| 2.a | Is the right to compensation for non-material damage to be determined on the basis that it also has an individual satisfaction function — understood here to mean the private interest of the injured party in seeing the behaviour that caused the damage penalised — or does it have only a compensatory function — understood here to mean the function of compensating for the detrimental effects suffered? |
| --- | --- |

2.a

Is the right to compensation for non-material damage to be determined on the basis that it also has an individual satisfaction function — understood here to mean the private interest of the injured party in seeing the behaviour that caused the damage penalised — or does it have only a compensatory function — understood here to mean the function of compensating for the detrimental effects suffered?

| 2.b.1. | If it is to be assumed that the right to compensation for non-material damage has both a compensatory and a satisfaction function: is it to be determined on the basis that the compensatory function has structural precedence over the satisfaction function or, at least, that the relationship between the two is that of the rule and the exception? Does that mean that it can have a satisfaction function only when the infringement is deliberate or a result of gross negligence? |
| --- | --- |

2.b.1.

If it is to be assumed that the right to compensation for non-material damage has both a compensatory and a satisfaction function: is it to be determined on the basis that the compensatory function has structural precedence over the satisfaction function or, at least, that the relationship between the two is that of the rule and the exception? Does that mean that it can have a satisfaction function only when the infringement is deliberate or a result of gross negligence?

| 2.b.2. | If the right to compensation for non-material damage does not have a satisfaction function: when determining that compensation, is additional weight attributed only to deliberate or grossly negligent data protection infringements deemed to be contributory factors? |
| --- | --- |

2.b.2.

If the right to compensation for non-material damage does not have a satisfaction function: when determining that compensation, is additional weight attributed only to deliberate or grossly negligent data protection infringements deemed to be contributory factors?

| 3. | Is the compensation for non-material damage to be determined on the basis of a structural order of precedence or, at least, a rule-exception relationship, which attributes less weight to the detrimental effects of a data infringement than to the detrimental and painful effects associated with a physical injury? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the compensation for non-material damage to be determined on the basis of a structural order of precedence or, at least, a rule-exception relationship, which attributes less weight to the detrimental effects of a data infringement than to the detrimental and painful effects associated with a physical injury?

| 4. | Assuming that damage has been sustained, can a national court award only minimal compensation, which may be perceived by the injured party or generally as merely symbolic, in the light of the non-serious nature of the damage? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Assuming that damage has been sustained, can a national court award only minimal compensation, which may be perceived by the injured party or generally as merely symbolic, in the light of the non-serious nature of the damage?

| 5. | Are the consequences of the compensation for non-material damage to be assessed on the basis that identity theft within the meaning of recital 75 of the General Data Protection Regulation requires an offender to have actually assumed the identity of the person concerned, that is to say to have somehow impersonated that person, or does the mere fact that offenders have gained possession of data that identify the person concerned constitute such identity theft? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are the consequences of the compensation for non-material damage to be assessed on the basis that identity theft within the meaning of recital 75 of the General Data Protection Regulation requires an offender to have actually assumed the identity of the person concerned, that is to say to have somehow impersonated that person, or does the mere fact that offenders have gained possession of data that identify the person concerned constitute such identity theft?

---

(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).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2022 — IK v KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V.

(Case C-184/22)

(2022/C 237/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IK

Defendant: KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Regulation 2006/54/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a national collective agreement to the effect that the payment of overtime supplements is available only for hours worked in excess of the standard working time of a full-time employee entails a difference in treatment as between full-time employees and part-time employees? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Regulation 2006/54/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a national collective agreement to the effect that the payment of overtime supplements is available only for hours worked in excess of the standard working time of a full-time employee entails a difference in treatment as between full-time employees and part-time employees?

| 2. | In the event that the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:






  (a) | Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 be interpreted as meaning that, in such a case, a finding that the difference in treatment affects considerably more women than men is not sustained by the fact alone that the part-time employees are made up of considerably more women than men, but requires in addition that the full-time employees be made up of considerably more men or a significantly higher proportion of men? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:

(a)

Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 be interpreted as meaning that, in such a case, a finding that the difference in treatment affects considerably more women than men is not sustained by the fact alone that the part-time employees are made up of considerably more women than men, but requires in addition that the full-time employees be made up of considerably more men or a significantly higher proportion of men?

| (b) | Or does something different also follow, in the case of Article 157 TFEU and Directive 2006/54, from the findings of the Court of Justice in paragraphs 25 to 36 of the judgment Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zaktad Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie, (2) according to which a difference in treatment even within a group of persons with disabilities may be covered by the ‘concept of “discrimination”’ referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC? (3) |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Or does something different also follow, in the case of Article 157 TFEU and Directive 2006/54, from the findings of the Court of Justice in paragraphs 25 to 36 of the judgment Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zaktad Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie, (2) according to which a difference in treatment even within a group of persons with disabilities may be covered by the ‘concept of “discrimination”’ referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC? (3)

| 3. | In the event that the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative and Questions 2(a) and 2(b) to the effect that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, it may be found that the difference in treatment in respect of pay affects considerably more women than men:
  Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 be interpreted as meaning that, it may be a legitimate aim for the parties to a collective agreement, by means of a provision such as that referred to in Question 1, on the one hand, to pursue the aim of deterring the employer from mandating overtime and rewarding recourse to employees to an extent in excess of that contracted by means of an overtime supplement, but, on the other hand, also to pursue the aim of preventing full-time employees from being treated less favourably than part-time employees and to provide for that reason that supplements are payable only for overtime worked in excess of a full-time employee’s working hours in a calendar month? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative and Questions 2(a) and 2(b) to the effect that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, it may be found that the difference in treatment in respect of pay affects considerably more women than men:

Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 be interpreted as meaning that, it may be a legitimate aim for the parties to a collective agreement, by means of a provision such as that referred to in Question 1, on the one hand, to pursue the aim of deterring the employer from mandating overtime and rewarding recourse to employees to an extent in excess of that contracted by means of an overtime supplement, but, on the other hand, also to pursue the aim of preventing full-time employees from being treated less favourably than part-time employees and to provide for that reason that supplements are payable only for overtime worked in excess of a full-time employee’s working hours in a calendar month?

| 4. | Must Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (4) be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a national collective agreement to the effect that the payment of overtime supplements is available only for hours worked in excess of the normal working hours of a full-time employee entails a difference in treatment as between full-time employees and part-time employees? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (4) be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a national collective agreement to the effect that the payment of overtime supplements is available only for hours worked in excess of the normal working hours of a full-time employee entails a difference in treatment as between full-time employees and part-time employees?

| 5. | In the event that the Court answers Question 4 in the affirmative, must Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work be interpreted as meaning that there may be an objective ground for the parties to a collective agreement, by means of a provision such as that referred to in Question 4, on the one hand, to pursue the aim of deterring the employer from mandating overtime and rewarding recourse to employees to an extent in excess of that contracted by means of an overtime supplement, but, on the other hand, also to pursue the aim of preventing full-time employees from being treated less favourably than part-time employees and to provide for that reason that supplements are payable only for overtime worked in excess of a full-time employee’s working hours in a calendar month? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event that the Court answers Question 4 in the affirmative, must Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work be interpreted as meaning that there may be an objective ground for the parties to a collective agreement, by means of a provision such as that referred to in Question 4, on the one hand, to pursue the aim of deterring the employer from mandating overtime and rewarding recourse to employees to an extent in excess of that contracted by means of an overtime supplement, but, on the other hand, also to pursue the aim of preventing full-time employees from being treated less favourably than part-time employees and to provide for that reason that supplements are payable only for overtime worked in excess of a full-time employee’s working hours in a calendar month?

---

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

(2)  Judgment of 26 January 2021 (Case C-16/19, EU:C:2021:64).

(3)  Council Directive of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(4)  Council Directive of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2022 — CM v KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V.

(Case C-185/22)

(2022/C 237/42)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CM

Defendant: KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Regulation 2006/54/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a national collective agreement to the effect that the payment of overtime supplements is available only for hours worked in excess of the standard working time of a full-time employee entails a difference in treatment as between full-time employees and part-time employees? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Regulation 2006/54/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a national collective agreement to the effect that the payment of overtime supplements is available only for hours worked in excess of the standard working time of a full-time employee entails a difference in treatment as between full-time employees and part-time employees?

| 2. | In the event that the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:






  (a) | Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 be interpreted as meaning that, in such a case, a finding that the difference in treatment affects considerably more women than men is not sustained by the fact alone that the part-time employees are made up of considerably more women than men, but requires in addition that the full-time employees be made up of considerably more men or a significantly higher proportion of men? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:

(a)

Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 be interpreted as meaning that, in such a case, a finding that the difference in treatment affects considerably more women than men is not sustained by the fact alone that the part-time employees are made up of considerably more women than men, but requires in addition that the full-time employees be made up of considerably more men or a significantly higher proportion of men?

| (b) | Or does something different also follow, in the case of Article 157 TFEU and Directive 2006/54, from the findings of the Court of Justice in paragraphs 25 to 36 of the judgment Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zaktad Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie, (2) according to which a difference in treatment even within a group of persons with disabilities may be covered by the ‘concept of “discrimination”’ referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC? (3) |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Or does something different also follow, in the case of Article 157 TFEU and Directive 2006/54, from the findings of the Court of Justice in paragraphs 25 to 36 of the judgment Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zaktad Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie, (2) according to which a difference in treatment even within a group of persons with disabilities may be covered by the ‘concept of “discrimination”’ referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC? (3)

| 3. | In the event that the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative and Questions 2(a) and 2(b) to the effect that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, it may be found that the difference in treatment in respect of pay affects considerably more women than men:
  Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 be interpreted as meaning that, it may be a legitimate aim for the parties to a collective agreement, by means of a provision such as that referred to in Question 1, on the one hand, to pursue the aim of deterring the employer from mandating overtime and rewarding recourse to employees to an extent in excess of that contracted by means of an overtime supplement, but, on the other hand, also to pursue the aim of preventing full-time employees from being treated less favourably than part-time employees and to provide for that reason that supplements are payable only for overtime worked in excess of a full-time employee’s working hours in a calendar month? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative and Questions 2(a) and 2(b) to the effect that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, it may be found that the difference in treatment in respect of pay affects considerably more women than men:

Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 be interpreted as meaning that, it may be a legitimate aim for the parties to a collective agreement, by means of a provision such as that referred to in Question 1, on the one hand, to pursue the aim of deterring the employer from mandating overtime and rewarding recourse to employees to an extent in excess of that contracted by means of an overtime supplement, but, on the other hand, also to pursue the aim of preventing full-time employees from being treated less favourably than part-time employees and to provide for that reason that supplements are payable only for overtime worked in excess of a full-time employee’s working hours in a calendar month?

| 4. | Must Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (4) be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a national collective agreement to the effect that the payment of overtime supplements is available only for hours worked in excess of the normal working hours of a full-time employee entails a difference in treatment as between full-time employees and part-time employees? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (4) be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a national collective agreement to the effect that the payment of overtime supplements is available only for hours worked in excess of the normal working hours of a full-time employee entails a difference in treatment as between full-time employees and part-time employees?

| 5. | In the event that the Court answers Question 4 in the affirmative, must Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work be interpreted as meaning that there may be an objective ground for the parties to a collective agreement, by means of a provision such as that referred to in Question 4, on the one hand, to pursue the aim of deterring the employer from mandating overtime and rewarding recourse to employees to an extent in excess of that contracted by means of an overtime supplement, but, on the other hand, also to pursue the aim of preventing full-time employees from being treated less favourably than part-time employees and to provide for that reason that supplements are payable only for overtime worked in excess of a full-time employee’s working hours in a calendar month? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event that the Court answers Question 4 in the affirmative, must Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work be interpreted as meaning that there may be an objective ground for the parties to a collective agreement, by means of a provision such as that referred to in Question 4, on the one hand, to pursue the aim of deterring the employer from mandating overtime and rewarding recourse to employees to an extent in excess of that contracted by means of an overtime supplement, but, on the other hand, also to pursue the aim of preventing full-time employees from being treated less favourably than part-time employees and to provide for that reason that supplements are payable only for overtime worked in excess of a full-time employee’s working hours in a calendar month?

---

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

(2)  Judgment of 26 January 2021 (Case C-16/19, EU:C:2021:64).

(3)  Council Directive of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(4)  Council Directive of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 March 2022 — SO v Scalable Capital GmbH

(Case C-189/22)

(2022/C 237/43)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SO

Defendant: Scalable Capital GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the right to compensation, including the determination of the amount of that compensation, does not have a punitive character, in particular, that it has no general or specific dissuasive function, but a purely compensatory function and, in some instances, a satisfaction function? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the right to compensation, including the determination of the amount of that compensation, does not have a punitive character, in particular, that it has no general or specific dissuasive function, but a purely compensatory function and, in some instances, a satisfaction function?

| 2.a | Is the right to compensation for non-material damage to be determined on the basis that it also has an individual satisfaction function — understood here to mean the private interest of the injured party in seeing the behaviour that caused the damage penalised — or does it have only a compensatory function — understood here to mean the function of compensating for the detrimental effects suffered? |
| --- | --- |

2.a

Is the right to compensation for non-material damage to be determined on the basis that it also has an individual satisfaction function — understood here to mean the private interest of the injured party in seeing the behaviour that caused the damage penalised — or does it have only a compensatory function — understood here to mean the function of compensating for the detrimental effects suffered?

| 2.b.1. | If it is to be assumed that the right to compensation for non-material damage has both a compensatory and a satisfaction function: is it to be determined on the basis that the compensatory function has structural precedence over the satisfaction function or, at least, that the relationship between the two is that of the rule and the exception? Does that mean that it can have a satisfaction function only when the infringement is deliberate or a result of gross negligence? |
| --- | --- |

2.b.1.

If it is to be assumed that the right to compensation for non-material damage has both a compensatory and a satisfaction function: is it to be determined on the basis that the compensatory function has structural precedence over the satisfaction function or, at least, that the relationship between the two is that of the rule and the exception? Does that mean that it can have a satisfaction function only when the infringement is deliberate or a result of gross negligence?

| 2.b.2. | If the right to compensation for non-material damage does not have a satisfaction function: when determining that compensation, is additional weight attributed only to deliberate or grossly negligent data protection infringements deemed to be contributory factors? |
| --- | --- |

2.b.2.

If the right to compensation for non-material damage does not have a satisfaction function: when determining that compensation, is additional weight attributed only to deliberate or grossly negligent data protection infringements deemed to be contributory factors?

| 3. | Is the compensation for non-material damage to be determined on the basis of a structural order of precedence or, at least, a rule-exception relationship, which attributes less weight to the detrimental effects of a data infringement than to the detrimental and painful effects associated with a physical injury? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the compensation for non-material damage to be determined on the basis of a structural order of precedence or, at least, a rule-exception relationship, which attributes less weight to the detrimental effects of a data infringement than to the detrimental and painful effects associated with a physical injury?

| 4. | Assuming that damage has been sustained, can a national court award only minimal compensation, which may be perceived by the injured party or generally as merely symbolic, in the light of the non-serious nature of the damage? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Assuming that damage has been sustained, can a national court award only minimal compensation, which may be perceived by the injured party or generally as merely symbolic, in the light of the non-serious nature of the damage?

| 5. | Are the consequences of the compensation for non-material damage to be assessed on the basis that identity theft within the meaning of recital 75 of the General Data Protection Regulation requires an offender to have actually assumed the identity of the person concerned, that is to say to have somehow impersonated that person, or does the mere fact that offenders have gained possession of data that identify the person concerned constitute such identity theft? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are the consequences of the compensation for non-material damage to be assessed on the basis that identity theft within the meaning of recital 75 of the General Data Protection Regulation requires an offender to have actually assumed the identity of the person concerned, that is to say to have somehow impersonated that person, or does the mere fact that offenders have gained possession of data that identify the person concerned constitute such identity theft?

---

(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).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 March 2022 — TR, UQ v FTI Touristik GmbH

(Case C-193/22)

(2022/C 237/44)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TR, UQ

Defendant: FTI Touristik GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements to be interpreted






  (a) | as meaning that the assessment of the justification of the termination must be based solely on such unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances as have already occurred at the time of termination, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements to be interpreted

(a)

as meaning that the assessment of the justification of the termination must be based solely on such unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances as have already occurred at the time of termination,

| (b) | or as meaning that it is also necessary to take into account extraordinary circumstances that actually occur after the termination but before the planned start of the journey (being the latest possible date of termination)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

or as meaning that it is also necessary to take into account extraordinary circumstances that actually occur after the termination but before the planned start of the journey (being the latest possible date of termination)?

If (a) is answered in the affirmative:

| (aa) | : Is Article 12(2) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that, in the course of legal proceedings on the justification of termination, travellers may also rely on such unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances as had already occurred at the time of termination but of which they only became aware later? |
| --- | --- |

(aa)

: Is Article 12(2) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that, in the course of legal proceedings on the justification of termination, travellers may also rely on such unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances as had already occurred at the time of termination but of which they only became aware later?

| 2. | Is Article 12(2) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the right to terminate without incurring any fees is not available where the circumstances on which the traveller relies already existed at the time of booking and were known to the traveller? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 12(2) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the right to terminate without incurring any fees is not available where the circumstances on which the traveller relies already existed at the time of booking and were known to the traveller?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2022 — TF v Sparkasse Südpfalz

(Case C-206/22)

(2022/C 237/45)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TF

Defendant: Sparkasse Südpfalz

Question referred

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and the right to an annual period of paid leave set out in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice on the granting of annual leave to workers under which the obligation to grant an entitlement to leave is fulfilled even if the worker is affected by an unforeseeable event during an authorised period of leave, such as, in the present case, government-ordered quarantine, and is therefore prevented from exercising that entitlement in full?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2022 — BU v Comune di Copertino

(Case C-218/22)

(2022/C 237/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Lecce

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BU

Defendant: Comune di Copertino

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings (namely Article 5(8) of decreto-legge 6 luglio 2012, n. 95, Disposizioni urgenti per la revisione della spesa pubblica con invarianza dei servizi ai cittadini nonché misure di rafforzamento patrimoniale delle imprese del settore bancario (Decree-Law No 95 of 6 July 2012 on urgent provisions for the revision of public expenditure with no change in services to citizens and measures to strengthen the capital base of companies in the banking sector), converted, with amendments, by Article 1(1) of legge 7 agosto 2012, n. 135 (Law No 135 of 7 August 2012)), which, for reasons of public expenditure containment and organisational requirements of the public sector as employer, does not permit the monetisation of leave in the event that an employee in the public service resigns?
  Further, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings (namely Article 5(8) of decreto-legge 6 luglio 2012, n. 95, Disposizioni urgenti per la revisione della spesa pubblica con invarianza dei servizi ai cittadini nonché misure di rafforzamento patrimoniale delle imprese del settore bancario (Decree-Law No 95 of 6 July 2012 on urgent provisions for the revision of public expenditure with no change in services to citizens and measures to strengthen the capital base of companies in the banking sector), converted, with amendments, by Article 1(1) of legge 7 agosto 2012, n. 135 (Law No 135 of 7 August 2012)), which, for reasons of public expenditure containment and organisational requirements of the public sector as employer, does not permit the monetisation of leave in the event that an employee in the public service resigns?

Further,

| 2. | if the answer to the question above is in the affirmative, must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as requiring the employee in the public service to demonstrate that it was impossible for him/her to take the leave concerned in the course of the employment relationship? |
| --- | --- |

2.

if the answer to the question above is in the affirmative, must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as requiring the employee in the public service to demonstrate that it was impossible for him/her to take the leave concerned in the course of the employment relationship?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 29 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against ND

(Case C-223/22)

(2022/C 237/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Party to the main proceedings

ND

Questions referred

| 1. | Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, (1) Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, (2) Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, (3) Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, converted into law and amended by Law No 26 of 28 March 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it makes access to basic income subject to the condition relating to residence in Italy for at least ten years (the final two of which, as at the time the application is made and for the entire duration of the benefit, must be consecutive), thus affording treatment to Italian nationals, EU nationals with a right of residence or permanent residence, or non-EU long-term residents who have been resident for less than ten years or for ten years, the final two of which were not consecutive, which is less favourable than that accorded to the same categories who have been resident for ten years, the final two of which were consecutive?
  If the previous question (4) is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, (1) Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, (2) Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, (3) Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, converted into law and amended by Law No 26 of 28 March 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it makes access to basic income subject to the condition relating to residence in Italy for at least ten years (the final two of which, as at the time the application is made and for the entire duration of the benefit, must be consecutive), thus affording treatment to Italian nationals, EU nationals with a right of residence or permanent residence, or non-EU long-term residents who have been resident for less than ten years or for ten years, the final two of which were not consecutive, which is less favourable than that accorded to the same categories who have been resident for ten years, the final two of which were consecutive?

If the previous question (4) is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, converted into law and amended by Law No 26 of 28 March 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it affords different treatment to long-term residents, who can acquire a permanent right of residence in an EU State after residing for five years in the host Member State, and long-term residents who have been resident for ten years, the final two of which were consecutive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, converted into law and amended by Law No 26 of 28 March 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it affords different treatment to long-term residents, who can acquire a permanent right of residence in an EU State after residing for five years in the host Member State, and long-term residents who have been resident for ten years, the final two of which were consecutive?

| 3. | Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109 and Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, which requires Italian nationals, EU nationals and non-EU nationals to be resident for ten years (the final two of which must be consecutive) in order to access basic income benefit? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109 and Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, which requires Italian nationals, EU nationals and non-EU nationals to be resident for ten years (the final two of which must be consecutive) in order to access basic income benefit?

| 4. | Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it, for the purposes of obtaining basic income benefit, requires Italian nationals, EU nationals and non-EU nationals to declare that they have resided in Italy for ten years, the final two of which must be consecutive, subjecting false declaration to severe consequences of criminal relevance? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of EU Regulation 492/11, Article 11(1)(d) of EU Directive 2003/109, Article 29 of EU Directive 2011/95, Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 30 and 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, preclude national legislation such as that contained in Article 7(1) of Decree-Law No 4 of 28 January 2019, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(1)(a) thereof, in so far as it, for the purposes of obtaining basic income benefit, requires Italian nationals, EU nationals and non-EU nationals to declare that they have resided in Italy for ten years, the final two of which must be consecutive, subjecting false declaration to severe consequences of criminal relevance?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

(3)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Gabrovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 March 2022 — IL v Regionalna direktsia ‘Avtomobilna administratsia’ Pleven

(Case C-227/22)

(2022/C 237/48)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Gabrovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: IL

Respondent in cassation: Regionalna direktsia ‘Avtomobilna administratsia’ Pleven

Question referred

Do the provisions of Directive 2006/126 (1) give Member States the possibility to require drivers of vehicles of categories С, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1, D1E to undergo medical examinations to determine their psychological and mental fitness at intervals shorter than the period of validity of the driving licence, and in this connection to require a separate document (in addition to the driving licence) certifying their fitness? Or does the holding of a valid driving licence for the abovementioned categories also certify the psychological and mental fitness of the driver, as that fitness was determined when the driving licence was first issued or renewed?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 1 April 2022 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-228/22)

(2022/C 237/49)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there always an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) (the Air Passenger Rights Regulation) in the case where the flight cancellation or the delay equivalent to a cancellation is attributable to a change to the slot allocation made by the competent air traffic control authority? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there always an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) (the Air Passenger Rights Regulation) in the case where the flight cancellation or the delay equivalent to a cancellation is attributable to a change to the slot allocation made by the competent air traffic control authority?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is it sufficient, for a finding that there is an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, that the change of slot allocation was attributable to a weather-related reduction in flight capacity, but the weather situation did not bring air traffic as a whole largely to a standstill? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is it sufficient, for a finding that there is an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, that the change of slot allocation was attributable to a weather-related reduction in flight capacity, but the weather situation did not bring air traffic as a whole largely to a standstill?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 4 April 2022 — Roheline Kogukond MTÜ, Eesti Metsa Abiks MTÜ, Päästame Eesti Metsad MTÜ and Sihtasutus Keskkonnateabe Ühendus v Keskkonnaagentuur

(Case C-234/22)

(2022/C 237/50)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Roheline Kogukond MTÜ, Eesti Metsa Abiks MTÜ, Päästame Eesti Metsad MTÜ and Sihtasutus Keskkonnateabe Ühendus

Defendant: Keskkonnaagentuur

Questions referred

| 1. | Must data such as those relating to the location of permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory in the main proceedings be classified as environmental information within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) or (b) of the environmental information directive? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must data such as those relating to the location of permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory in the main proceedings be classified as environmental information within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) or (b) of the environmental information directive? (1)

| 2. | If, according to the answer to the first question, they are to be classified as environmental information: Is Article 4(1)(d) of the environmental information directive consequently to be interpreted as meaning that data on the location of permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory are also to be classified as material in the course of completion or unfinished documents or data?
  Is Article 4(2)(a) of the environmental information directive to be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down in that provision — namely that the relevant confidentiality is provided for by law — is satisfied where the confidentiality requirement is laid down by law not for a specific type of information but results, by way of interpretation, from a provision of an instrument of a general nature, such as the Law on public information or the Law on State statistics?
  Is it necessary, for the purposes of the application of Article 4(2)(b) of the environmental information directive, to establish the existence of actual negative effects on the international relations of the State resulting from the disclosure of the requested information, or is it sufficient to establish that there is a risk in that regard?
  Does the ground of ‘the protection of the environment [in question]’ referred to in Article 4(2)(h) of the environmental information directive justify restricting access to environmental information in order to ensure the reliability of State statistics? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If, according to the answer to the first question, they are to be classified as environmental information: Is Article 4(1)(d) of the environmental information directive consequently to be interpreted as meaning that data on the location of permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory are also to be classified as material in the course of completion or unfinished documents or data?

Is Article 4(2)(a) of the environmental information directive to be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down in that provision — namely that the relevant confidentiality is provided for by law — is satisfied where the confidentiality requirement is laid down by law not for a specific type of information but results, by way of interpretation, from a provision of an instrument of a general nature, such as the Law on public information or the Law on State statistics?

Is it necessary, for the purposes of the application of Article 4(2)(b) of the environmental information directive, to establish the existence of actual negative effects on the international relations of the State resulting from the disclosure of the requested information, or is it sufficient to establish that there is a risk in that regard?

Does the ground of ‘the protection of the environment [in question]’ referred to in Article 4(2)(h) of the environmental information directive justify restricting access to environmental information in order to ensure the reliability of State statistics?

| 3. | If, according to the answer to the first question, data such as those relating to the location of the permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory in the main proceedings are not environmental information, must a request for information concerning such data be regarded as a request for access to information as defined in Article 2(1)(b) of the environmental information directive, which must be treated in accordance with Article 8(2)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If, according to the answer to the first question, data such as those relating to the location of the permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory in the main proceedings are not environmental information, must a request for information concerning such data be regarded as a request for access to information as defined in Article 2(1)(b) of the environmental information directive, which must be treated in accordance with Article 8(2)?

| 4. | If the third question is answered in the affirmative: Must data such as those relating to the location of the permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory in the main proceedings be regarded as information on methods of analysis, sampling and pre-treatment of samples within the meaning of Article 8(2) of the environmental information directive? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the third question is answered in the affirmative: Must data such as those relating to the location of the permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory in the main proceedings be regarded as information on methods of analysis, sampling and pre-treatment of samples within the meaning of Article 8(2) of the environmental information directive?

| 5. | If the fourth question is answered in the affirmative: Can the access to such information under Article 8(2) of the environmental information directive be restricted for any serious reason arising from national law?
  Can a refusal to release information on the basis of Article 8(2) of the environmental information directive be mitigated by other measures, such as measures which provide access to the requested information to research and development institutions or to the Court of Auditors for the purposes of an audit? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the fourth question is answered in the affirmative: Can the access to such information under Article 8(2) of the environmental information directive be restricted for any serious reason arising from national law?

Can a refusal to release information on the basis of Article 8(2) of the environmental information directive be mitigated by other measures, such as measures which provide access to the requested information to research and development institutions or to the Court of Auditors for the purposes of an audit?

| 6. | Can a refusal to release data such as those relating to the location of the permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory in the main proceedings be justified by the objective of ensuring the quality of environmental information within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the environmental information directive? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Can a refusal to release data such as those relating to the location of the permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory in the main proceedings be justified by the objective of ensuring the quality of environmental information within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the environmental information directive?

| 7. | Does recital 21 of the environmental information directive constitute a legal basis for the release of data relating to the location of permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Does recital 21 of the environmental information directive constitute a legal basis for the release of data relating to the location of permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/40

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 8 April 2022 — Z.K. and M.S. v The Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-248/22)

(2022/C 237/51)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Z.K. and M.S.

Respondent: The Minister for Justice and Equality

Question referred:

Does Council Directive 2004/38/EC (1) prohibit the simultaneous conferral of derived rights of residence on the estranged spouse and the de facto, durable partner of a European Union citizen lawfully exercising his right of free movement as a worker under the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/41

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 April 2022 — BM v Gebühren Info Service GmbH (GIS)

(Case C-249/22)

(2022/C 237/52)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BM

Defendant: Gebühren Info Service GmbH (GIS)

Joined parties: Bundesminister für Finanzen, Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF)

Questions referred

| 1. | Taking into account the primary law provision of Article 151(1) in conjunction with Annex XV, Part IX, No. 2, letter h, first subparagraph, second indent, of the Act concerning the conditions of accession and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, (1) must consideration such as the programme fee of the Österreichischer Rundfunk (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, ‘ORF’), which the public service broadcaster sets itself in order to finance its operation, be regarded as consideration within the meaning of Article 2 in conjunction with Article 378(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Taking into account the primary law provision of Article 151(1) in conjunction with Annex XV, Part IX, No. 2, letter h, first subparagraph, second indent, of the Act concerning the conditions of accession and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, (1) must consideration such as the programme fee of the Österreichischer Rundfunk (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, ‘ORF’), which the public service broadcaster sets itself in order to finance its operation, be regarded as consideration within the meaning of Article 2 in conjunction with Article 378(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must the ORF programme fee referred to therein also be regarded as consideration within the meaning of Directive 2006/112 in so far as persons are obliged to pay it who, although they operate a broadcast receiver in a building which is supplied by the ORF with its terrestrial programmes, cannot receive those ORF programmes because they do not have the necessary receiver module? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must the ORF programme fee referred to therein also be regarded as consideration within the meaning of Directive 2006/112 in so far as persons are obliged to pay it who, although they operate a broadcast receiver in a building which is supplied by the ORF with its terrestrial programmes, cannot receive those ORF programmes because they do not have the necessary receiver module?

---

(1)  Concluded together with the Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union) and the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, concerning the accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 336).

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

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/41

---

Appeal brought on 12 April 2022 by Pilatus Bank plc against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 February 2022 in Case T-27/19, Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB

(Case C-256/22 P)

(2022/C 237/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pilatus Bank plc (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission, Pilatus Holding ltd.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgement under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgement under appeal;

| — | declare void, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the ECB’s decision of 2 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the licence of Pilatus Bank; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the ECB’s decision of 2 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the licence of Pilatus Bank;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the action for annulment as far as the Court of Justice is not able to take a decision on the merits; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the action for annulment as far as the Court of Justice is not able to take a decision on the merits;

| — | order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

First ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erroneously assumed that it is legally relevant whether the ECB is responsible for the preceding de facto license withdrawal and in particular whether the ECB was under an obligation to prevent the de facto license withdrawal by means of an intervention pursuant to Article 6(5)(c) of Single supervisory mechanism Regulation (SSMR) (1).

Second ground of appeal alleging that the rejection by the General Court of the appellant’s second plea in law is based on the General Court’s erroneous view that the concept of reputation in Article 23 of Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV) (2) does not necessarily have to be interpreted in accordance with the European Union legal order so that an indictment in a third country may damage a shareholder’s reputation even if the relevant conduct is not illegal in the European Union order and even if the conduct is covered by a Blocking Statute.

Third ground of appeal alleging that the judgement under appeal is based on a number of further errors which include that the General Court misinterpreted the concept of proportionality by failing to consider that a proportionality analysis needs to be based on the grounds on which the decision is based.

Fourth ground of appeal alleging that the appellant’s procedural rights were violated.

---

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

(2)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/42

---

Appeal brought on 2 May 2022 by Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2022 in Case T-556/20 D & A Pharma v Commission and EMA

(Case C-291/22 P)

(2022/C 237/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) (represented by: N. Viguié, E. Gouesse, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 in Case T-556/20, D&A Pharma v Commission and EMA; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 in Case T-556/20, D&A Pharma v Commission and EMA;

| — | uphold the action and annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 6 July 2020, C(2020) 4694 final refusing the application for marketing authorisation for Hopveus — sodium oxybate, a medicinal product for human use, under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action and annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 6 July 2020, C(2020) 4694 final refusing the application for marketing authorisation for Hopveus — sodium oxybate, a medicinal product for human use, under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004;

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

—

order the Commission and the EMA to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

By its first ground, the appellant claims, in the first place, that the judgment under appeal contains an error of law in that the General Court held that the Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use (‘CHMP’) has a broad discretion to decide to rely on the permanent Scientific Advisory Group (‘SAG’) or an ad hoc committee, contrary to the last sentence of the fifth subparagraph of Article 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, (1) to Article 11 of the CHMP Rules of Procedure (2) and to Article 6.1 of the guidelines for the re-examination procedure. (3) That error in law is coupled with an incorrect legal characterisation of the facts, since, in the present case and in any event, only the permanent SAG on Psychiatry could legitimately be consulted.

In the second place, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts in holding that the applicant had not demonstrated the influence that consulting the permanent SAG on Psychiatry could have had on the content of the contested decision, even though, first, Hopveus was in a comparable situation to Selincro (that medication having benefitted from the consultation of the permanent SAG on Psychiatry and obtained a marketing authorisation) and, second, the expertise and working method of the permanent SAG on Psychiatry meant that consulting it could have influenced the content of the decision adopted.

By its second ground, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal, in the first place, contains an error of law as regards the right to good administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in that the General Court held that the appellant had not established that the ad hoc committee convened by the CHMP lacked impartiality on the ground that it had not adduced evidence of personal bias or prejudice on the part of individual members, whereas the appellant relied on the ground of objective impartiality, which does not require the demonstration of statements or views that are subjectively impartial.

In the second place, the appellant alleges that the General Court, misrepresented the facts in holding that the two ad hoc committee members concerned would not have had conflicting interests even though their respective situations were capable of establishing objectively justified doubt and consequently a lack of objective impartiality of that ad hoc committee.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

(2)  Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use — Rules of Procedure, EMEA/45110/2007.

(3)  Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, Procedural Advice on the Re-examination of CHMP Opinions, EMEA/CHMP/50745/2005 Rev. 1.

---

General Court

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Mubarak and Others v Council

(Cases T-335/18, T-338/18 and T-327/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Egypt - Measures directed against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and associated persons and entities - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds - Maintenance of the applicants’ names on the list - Rights of the defence - Obligation on the Council of the European Union to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 237/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants in Case T-335/18: Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo, Egypt), Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo), Heidy Mohamed Magdy Hussein Rasekh (Cairo), Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal (Cairo) (represented by: B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and by G. Martin, C. Enderby Smith and F. Holmey, Solicitors)

Applicant in Case T-338/18: Suzanne Saleh Thabet (Cairo) (represented by: B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and by G. Martin, C. Enderby Smith and F. Holmey, Solicitors)

Applicant in T-327/19: Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, as heir of Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo) (represented by: B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and by G. Martin, C. Enderby Smith and F. Holmey, Solicitors)

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

Re:

Actions based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/466 of 21 March 2018 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2018 L 78I, p. 3), Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/468 of 21 March 2019 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2019 L 80, p. 40), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/418 of 19 March 2020 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2020 L 86, p. 11), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/465 of 21 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2018 L 78I, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/459 of 21 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2019 L 80, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/416 of 19 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2020 L 86, p. 3), in so far as those acts apply to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that Cases T-335/18, T-338/18 and T-327/19 be joined for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that Cases T-335/18, T-338/18 and T-327/19 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/466 of 21 March 2018 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/468 of 21 March 2019 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/418 of 19 March 2020 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, in so far as those decisions concern Mr Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Ms Heidy Mohamed Magdy Hussein Rasekh, Ms Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal and Ms Suzanne Saleh Thabet; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/466 of 21 March 2018 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/468 of 21 March 2019 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/418 of 19 March 2020 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, in so far as those decisions concern Mr Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Ms Heidy Mohamed Magdy Hussein Rasekh, Ms Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal and Ms Suzanne Saleh Thabet;

| 3. | Annuls Decision 2019/468 and Decision 2020/418 in so far as those decisions concern Mr Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls Decision 2019/468 and Decision 2020/418 in so far as those decisions concern Mr Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak;

| 4. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/465 of 21 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/459 of 21 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/416 of 19 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, in so far as those regulations concern Mr Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Ms Heidy Mohamed Magdy Hussein Rasekh, Ms Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal and Ms Suzanne Saleh Thabet; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/465 of 21 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/459 of 21 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/416 of 19 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, in so far as those regulations concern Mr Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Ms Heidy Mohamed Magdy Hussein Rasekh, Ms Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal and Ms Suzanne Saleh Thabet;

| 5. | Annuls Implementing Regulation 2019/459 and Implementing Regulation 2020/416 in so far as they concern Mr Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Annuls Implementing Regulation 2019/459 and Implementing Regulation 2020/416 in so far as they concern Mr Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak;

| 6. | Orders the Council of the European Union, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by Mr Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Ms Heidy Mohamed Magdy Hussein Rasekh, Ms Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal and Ms Suzanne Saleh Thabet. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Council of the European Union, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by Mr Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Ms Heidy Mohamed Magdy Hussein Rasekh, Ms Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal and Ms Suzanne Saleh Thabet.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) and Others v Commission

(Case T-508/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by the Government of Gibraltar concerning corporation tax - Tax exemption for interest income and royalties - Advance tax rulings benefiting multinationals - Commission decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Selective advantage - Right to submit comments)

(2022/C 237/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore), MJN Global Holdings BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Mead Johnson BV (Nijmegen, Netherlands), Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. (Chicago, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C. Quigley, Barrister, M. Whitehouse and P. Halford, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State Aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime (OJ 2019 L 119, p. 151).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State Aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime so far as it states, in Article 2, that the individual aid granted by the Government of Gibraltar on the basis of the continuation, after 31 December 2013, of the advance tax ruling granted to MJN Holdings (Gibraltar) Ltd is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and in so far as it orders, in Article 5(1) and (2), the recovery of that aid; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State Aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime so far as it states, in Article 2, that the individual aid granted by the Government of Gibraltar on the basis of the continuation, after 31 December 2013, of the advance tax ruling granted to MJN Holdings (Gibraltar) Ltd is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and in so far as it orders, in Article 5(1) and (2), the recovery of that aid;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd, MJN Global Holdings BV, Mead Johnson BV, Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. and the Commission to each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd, MJN Global Holdings BV, Mead Johnson BV, Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. and the Commission to each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — FC v EUAA

(Case T-634/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pre-disciplinary proceedings - Suspension, withholding of remuneration and prohibition on access to EUAA’s premises and facilities - OLAF Report - Principle of sound administration - Right to be heard - Principle of impartiality - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Liability - Close link with the claim for annulment)

(2022/C 237/57)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, A. Skoulikis and M.-C. Vlachoy, lawyers)

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

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) of [confidential] by which that agency suspended her and of the decision of [confidential] by which it rejected her complaint of [confidential] and, second, compensation for the harm she claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders FC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Flašker v Commission

(Case T-392/20) (1)

(State aid - Measures granted by Slovenia to a municipal network of dispensing pharmacies - Preliminary examination phase - Decision of the Commission finding no State aid and, possibly, that there is existing aid - Decision adopted without initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Serious difficulties)

(2022/C 237/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Petra Flašker (Grosuplje, Slovenia) (represented by: K. Zdolšek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and C. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: B. Jovin Hrastnik, acting as Agent)

Re:

By her action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 1724 final of 24 March 2020 closing the examination of measures concerning the public pharmacy Lekarna Ljubljana in the light of the State aid rules in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU (Case SA.43546 (2016/FC) — Slovenia).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 1724 final of 24 March 2020 closing the examination of measures concerning the public pharmacy Lekarna Ljubljana in the light of the State aid rules in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU (Case SA.43546 (2016/FC) — Slovenia) in so far as it concerns the assets under management of Lekarna Ljubljana; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 1724 final of 24 March 2020 closing the examination of measures concerning the public pharmacy Lekarna Ljubljana in the light of the State aid rules in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU (Case SA.43546 (2016/FC) — Slovenia) in so far as it concerns the assets under management of Lekarna Ljubljana;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Petra Flašker; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Petra Flašker;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — KU v EEAS

(Case T-425/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - EEAS staff - Psychological harassment - Administrative investigation - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Reasonable time - Liability)

(2022/C 237/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KU (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 17 September 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance and, secondly, compensation for the harm which she claims to have suffered as a result of psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders KU to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Correia v EESC

(Case T-750/20) (1)

(Civil service - EESC staff - Members of the temporary staff - Request for career reconstitution - Rejection of the request - Action for annulment - Proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure - Time limit for lodging a complaint - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Entitlement to reasonable career prospects - Absence of a right to career constitution - Obligation to carry out a consideration of the comparative merits - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2022/C 237/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paula Correia (Woluwe-Saint-Étienne, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 8 April 2020 by which the EESC rejected her request for career reconstitution, second, an order that the EESC pay remuneration arrears and derived financial benefits, together with late payment interest and, third, compensation for the non-material damage that she claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 8 April 2020 rejecting Ms Paula Correia’s request for career constitution; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 8 April 2020 rejecting Ms Paula Correia’s request for career constitution;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders the EESC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — QA v Commission

(Case T-68/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) - Audit report - Language - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Proportionality - Principle of good administration)

(2022/C 237/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QA (represented by: C. Roth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Perrin and E. Stamate, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of certain comments in the final audit report of 8 January 2014 adopted by the European Commission following the financial audit carried out regarding A’s participation in project B which was funded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders QA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Dorit-DFT v EUIPO — Erwin Suter (DORIT)

(Case T-208/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark DORIT - Earlier national company names - Relative ground for refusal - No use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 237/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Erwin Suter AG Maschinenfabrik Retus (Kölliken, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Brecht, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 (Case R 127/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen and Erwin Suter Maschinenfabrik Retus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Agora Invest v EUIPO — Transportes Maquinaria y Obras (TRAMOSA)

(Case T-219/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TRAMOSA - Earlier EU figurative mark TRAMO, SA TRANSPORTE MAQUINARIA Y OBRAS, S.A. - 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) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2022/C 237/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Agora Invest, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, 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: Transportes Maquinaria y Obras, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2021 (Case R 566/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Transportes Maquinaria y Obras and Agora Invest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Agora Invest, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agora Invest, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Moio v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (moio.care)

(Case T-276/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark moio.care - Earlier EU word mark Molicare - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 237/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Moio GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: E. Grande García, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2021 (Case R 1034/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann and Moio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Moio GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Moio GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/51

---

Order of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL)

(Case T-6/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Advanced Organic Materials, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Swiss Pharma International AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 October 2020 (Case R 781/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Swiss Pharma International and Advanced Organic Materials.

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. | Advanced Organic Materials, SA and Swiss Pharma International AG shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Advanced Organic Materials, SA and Swiss Pharma International AG shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/52

---

Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Retail Royalty v EUIPO — Fashion Energy (Representation of an eagle)

(Case T-226/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2813/2019-5), relating to cancellation proceedings between Fashion Energy and Retail Royalty.

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. | Retail Royalty Co. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Retail Royalty Co. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/52

---

Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Sunshine Smile v EUIPO (PlusDental+)

(Case T-265/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 237/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sunshine Smile GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. Weller and V. Wolf, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 (Case R 1834/2020-2), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PlusDental+ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

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

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/53

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA)

(Case T-343/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and J. F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aruba SpA (Ponte San Pietro, Italy) (represented by: N. Scardaccione, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 (Case R 259/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aruba and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development.

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. | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Aruba SpA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Aruba SpA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/54

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA NETWORKS)

(Case T-345/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and J. F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aruba SpA (Ponte San Pietro, Italy) (represented by: N. Scardaccione, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2021 (Case R 1473/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aruba and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development.

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. | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Aruba SpA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Aruba SpA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/54

---

Order of the General Court of 29 March 2022 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXORIGINAL)

(Case T-797/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Wachinger and R. Drozdz, 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 intervening before the General Court: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfield, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2021 (Case R 1644/2019-1), in relation to opposition proceedings between Helixor Heilmittel and Gustopharma Consumer Health.

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. | Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/55

---

Order of the General Court of 29 March 2022 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXFORTE)

(Case T-798/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Wachinger and R. Drozdz, 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: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2021 (Case R 1645/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Helixor Heilmittel and Gustopharma Consumer Health.

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. | Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/55

---

Action brought on 18 January 2022 — XH v Commission

(Case T-522/21)

(2022/C 237/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: XH (represented by: K. Górny-Salwarowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision D/386/20 of 24 November 2020 concerning the refusal to rectify the applicant’s Sysper 2 file, upheld by decision No. R/125/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 16 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 22 February 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision D/386/20 of 24 November 2020 concerning the refusal to rectify the applicant’s Sysper 2 file, upheld by decision No. R/125/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 16 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 22 February 2021;

| — | annul decision of 12 November 2020 (IA no 32-2020) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2020, upheld by decision No. R/80/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 5 February 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision of 12 November 2020 (IA no 32-2020) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2020, upheld by decision No. R/80/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 5 February 2021;

| — | compensate the loss and damages of the applicant; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the loss and damages of the applicant; (1)

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedures: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C(2013)8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedures: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C(2013)8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Two specific amounts of damages are claimed in the application, namely EUR 25 000 for non-material loss and EUR 50 000 in respect of the applicant’s alleged material damage.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/56

---

Action brought on 30 March 2022 — T-Systems International v Commission

(Case T-173/22)

(2022/C 237/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: T-Systems International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, D. Bogaert and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision to award the contract within the Tender Procedure DIGIT/A3/PR/2019/010 for the provision of services in relation with Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA), of which the results were notified on 21 January 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to award the contract within the Tender Procedure DIGIT/A3/PR/2019/010 for the provision of services in relation with Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA), of which the results were notified on 21 January 2022;

| — | order the European Commission to bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 168(6) of the Financial Regulation (1) and the illegality of all offers submitted within the procedure as the requirements set out in the Tender Specifications make excessively difficult or impossible the implementation of the service, and therefore the submission of a regular offer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 168(6) of the Financial Regulation (1) and the illegality of all offers submitted within the procedure as the requirements set out in the Tender Specifications make excessively difficult or impossible the implementation of the service, and therefore the submission of a regular offer.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant modified the mandatory requirements set out in the Technical Specifications in violation of the essential conditions of the procedure when assessing the bids of other tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant modified the mandatory requirements set out in the Technical Specifications in violation of the essential conditions of the procedure when assessing the bids of other tenderers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that a high risk of substantial modification of the contract exists, as the Commission awarded the contract on technical terms which it could not have been unaware would be rapidly obsolete, if not already obsolete at the time of its tender, in violation of Article 170 of the Financial Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that a high risk of substantial modification of the contract exists, as the Commission awarded the contract on technical terms which it could not have been unaware would be rapidly obsolete, if not already obsolete at the time of its tender, in violation of Article 170 of the Financial Regulation.

---

(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).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/57

---

Action brought on 14 April 2022 — Mariani v Parliament

(Case T-196/22)

(2022/C 237/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Mariani (Paris, France) (represented by: F-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision D-301939 of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022 excluding Mr Thierry Mariani from taking part in election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his parliamentary mandate (2019-2024); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision D-301939 of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022 excluding Mr Thierry Mariani from taking part in election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his parliamentary mandate (2019-2024);

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Articles 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Articles 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons. According to the applicant, the contested decision lacks sufficient reasoning, in so far as it does not refer with precision to the acts that imposed the penalty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons. According to the applicant, the contested decision lacks sufficient reasoning, in so far as it does not refer with precision to the acts that imposed the penalty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the penalty procedure laid down by the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. The applicant points out, in that respect, that the procedural error in the present case is a manifest error, in so far as no provision of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament applies to the present case and the disciplinary procedure applicable to Members of the European Parliament and referred to in the Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament was not followed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the penalty procedure laid down by the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. The applicant points out, in that respect, that the procedural error in the present case is a manifest error, in so far as no provision of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament applies to the present case and the disciplinary procedure applicable to Members of the European Parliament and referred to in the Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament was not followed.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the adversarial principle. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the penalty procedure was not adversarial, in so far as the right to be heard of the applicant was not respected, since he was unable to submit his observations prior to the penalty decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the adversarial principle. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the penalty procedure was not adversarial, in so far as the right to be heard of the applicant was not respected, since he was unable to submit his observations prior to the penalty decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’). According to the applicant, the principle of equality was breached, in so far as the applicant was not notified of the contested decision in his maternal language and because it did not mention the remedies available and the periods in which these remedies may be exercised. Furthermore, the prosecutor also acted as decision-maker, although the separation of those functions is a guarantee offered by Article 6 of the ECHR. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’). According to the applicant, the principle of equality was breached, in so far as the applicant was not notified of the contested decision in his maternal language and because it did not mention the remedies available and the periods in which these remedies may be exercised. Furthermore, the prosecutor also acted as decision-maker, although the separation of those functions is a guarantee offered by Article 6 of the ECHR.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant argues that the contested decision, due to its severity, is marred by discrimination since it intervenes following the initial suspension decision of 18 June 2021, already confirming an inequality of treatment between Members according to their political affiliation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant argues that the contested decision, due to its severity, is marred by discrimination since it intervenes following the initial suspension decision of 18 June 2021, already confirming an inequality of treatment between Members according to their political affiliation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of prohibition of any binding mandate. The contested decision deprives the Member of his independence and breaches the prohibition of any binding mandate in so far as the applicant cannot validly be criticised for having been invited by a State outside the European Union to act as an independent observer of a ballot, even though the applicant never claimed to represent, in that context, the European institution of which he is a member. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of prohibition of any binding mandate. The contested decision deprives the Member of his independence and breaches the prohibition of any binding mandate in so far as the applicant cannot validly be criticised for having been invited by a State outside the European Union to act as an independent observer of a ballot, even though the applicant never claimed to represent, in that context, the European institution of which he is a member.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision is final and non-reviewable. According to the applicant, the contested decision should be annulled, lastly, in so far as it is of immediate applicability and does not provide any possibility of re-examination before the end of the applicant’s mandate. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision is final and non-reviewable. According to the applicant, the contested decision should be annulled, lastly, in so far as it is of immediate applicability and does not provide any possibility of re-examination before the end of the applicant’s mandate.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/58

---

Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-200/22)

(2022/C 237/75)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the European Commission contained in the letters of 7 February 2022, 8 February 2022, 16 March 2022 and 31 March 2022, relating to the offsetting of the amounts receivable by way of the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 20 September 2021 (Czech Republic v Poland, C-121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752) with regard to the period from 20 September 2021 to 17 January 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the European Commission contained in the letters of 7 February 2022, 8 February 2022, 16 March 2022 and 31 March 2022, relating to the offsetting of the amounts receivable by way of the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 20 September 2021 (Czech Republic v Poland, C-121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752) with regard to the period from 20 September 2021 to 17 January 2022;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of Articles 101 and 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) read in conjunction with Article 98 thereof, as a result of the application of the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable by offsetting, despite the fact that those amounts had ceased to exist. The applicant submits that the Commission had no legal basis for adopting the contested decisions given that, as a result of the settlement agreement concluded between the Polish and Czech governments, the waiver by both parties of any claims, and the removal of Case C-121/21 (2) from the register of the Court of Justice, the effects of the order of 20 September 2021 had retroactively ceased to exist. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of Articles 101 and 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) read in conjunction with Article 98 thereof, as a result of the application of the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable by offsetting, despite the fact that those amounts had ceased to exist. The applicant submits that the Commission had no legal basis for adopting the contested decisions given that, as a result of the settlement agreement concluded between the Polish and Czech governments, the waiver by both parties of any claims, and the removal of Case C-121/21 (2) from the register of the Court of Justice, the effects of the order of 20 September 2021 had retroactively ceased to exist.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, as well as Article 41(2)(c) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a result of an insufficient statement of reasons in the contested decisions. The applicant submits that, in adopting the contested decisions, the Commission failed to provide a statement of reasons, as required by the Treaty and the case-law of the Court of Justice, with regard to the legal basis for the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable conducted by means of those decisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, as well as Article 41(2)(c) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a result of an insufficient statement of reasons in the contested decisions. The applicant submits that, in adopting the contested decisions, the Commission failed to provide a statement of reasons, as required by the Treaty and the case-law of the Court of Justice, with regard to the legal basis for the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable conducted by means of those decisions.

---

(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).

(2)  Order of 4 February 2022, Czech Republic v Poland (Turów mine), C-121/21, not published, EU:C:2022:82.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/59

---

Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-203/22)

(2022/C 237/76)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 15 February 2022 bearing reference number Ref. Ares (2022) 1097097 rejecting the request of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for review of the decision of 6 January 2022 and for an extension of four years of the eight-year period for recovery of amounts wrongly paid in the FresQ case; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 15 February 2022 bearing reference number Ref. Ares (2022) 1097097 rejecting the request of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for review of the decision of 6 January 2022 and for an extension of four years of the eight-year period for recovery of amounts wrongly paid in the FresQ case;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision of 15 February 2022 is based on the incorrect assumption that the recovery procedure is not yet concluded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of 15 February 2022 is based on the incorrect assumption that the recovery procedure is not yet concluded.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the third subparagraph of Article 54(2) of Regulation 1306/2013 in so far as it assumes that the exceedance of the eight-year period is attributable to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the third subparagraph of Article 54(2) of Regulation 1306/2013 in so far as it assumes that the exceedance of the eight-year period is attributable to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/59

---

Action brought on 20 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-206/22)

(2022/C 237/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sara Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and K. Assogba, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,






  — | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,

—

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I;

| — | Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

| — | under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Sara Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Sara Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.

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 breach of the rights of defence and to a fair trial. The applicant claims that the Council infringed her rights of defence, in particular, her right to be heard before the inclusion of her name in the disputed lists. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence and to a fair trial. The applicant claims that the Council infringed her rights of defence, in particular, her right to be heard before the inclusion of her name in the disputed lists.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of proof. The applicant argues that the Council’s submissions with respect to the existence of an ‘inherent risk that the inherited assets will be used to support the activities of the Syrian regime and will flow directly into the regime’s possession, potentially contributing to the regime’s violent repression of the civilian population’ must be definitively rejected as they are unfounded, and lack any factual basis to support them. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of proof. The applicant argues that the Council’s submissions with respect to the existence of an ‘inherent risk that the inherited assets will be used to support the activities of the Syrian regime and will flow directly into the regime’s possession, potentially contributing to the regime’s violent repression of the civilian population’ must be definitively rejected as they are unfounded, and lack any factual basis to support them.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in the interference with fundamental rights. According to the applicant, the disputed measure must be invalidated, as it is disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by the contested acts. The disproportion stems, in particular, from the fact that all the assets of the applicant are concerned without any distinction. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in the interference with fundamental rights. According to the applicant, the disputed measure must be invalidated, as it is disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by the contested acts. The disproportion stems, in particular, from the fact that all the assets of the applicant are concerned without any distinction.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property. The applicant maintains that the disputed measures cause an unjustified interference with the right to property of the applicant in that they include, without distinction, the assets that may be inherited by the applicant as well as personal assets. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property. The applicant maintains that the disputed measures cause an unjustified interference with the right to property of the applicant in that they include, without distinction, the assets that may be inherited by the applicant as well as personal assets.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law concerning the claim for compensation for the loss suffered. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law concerning the claim for compensation for the loss suffered.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/60

---

Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Mhana v Council

(Case T-207/22)

(2022/C 237/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ghada Mhana (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and K. Assogba, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,






  — | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,

—

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I;

| — | Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

| — | under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Ghada Mhana requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Ghada Mhana requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-206/22, Makhlouf v Council.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/61

---

Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-208/22)

(2022/C 237/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kinda Makhlouf (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: G. Karouni and K. Assogba, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,






  — | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,

—

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I;

| — | Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

Under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Kinda Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-206/22, Makhlouf v Council.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/62

---

Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-209/22)

(2022/C 237/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Shahla Makhlouf (Fairfax, Virginia, United States) (represented by: G. Karouni and K. Assogba, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,






  — | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,

—

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I;

| — | Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 30 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 30 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

| — | under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Shahla Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Shahla Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-206/22, Makhlouf v Council.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/62

---

Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Prigozhina v Council

(Case T-212/22)

(2022/C 237/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Violetta Prigozhina (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action of Ms Violetta Prigozhina admissible and; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action of Ms Violetta Prigozhina admissible and;

In so far as they concern the applicant,

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP; (1)

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014; (2)

| — | rule that in any event the name of Ms Violetta Prigozhina should be removed without delay from the contested acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that in any event the name of Ms Violetta Prigozhina should be removed without delay from the contested acts;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the Council failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for the contested acts by providing no specific reason for listing the name of the applicant in the body of the contested acts or to understand the logic leading to that listing. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the Council failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for the contested acts by providing no specific reason for listing the name of the applicant in the body of the contested acts or to understand the logic leading to that listing.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a lack of substantive legality. The applicant claims that the reasoning is vitiated by factual errors which deny it a sufficient basis and contains a manifest error of assessment. The applicant disputes being currently linked to the undertaking Concord Management and Consulting LLC. She also disputes her son’s alleged association with Wagner Group and claims that, in any event, it cannot legitimately be inferred from the links to her son that she may have contributed to compromising the territorial integrity of Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a lack of substantive legality. The applicant claims that the reasoning is vitiated by factual errors which deny it a sufficient basis and contains a manifest error of assessment. The applicant disputes being currently linked to the undertaking Concord Management and Consulting LLC. She also disputes her son’s alleged association with Wagner Group and claims that, in any event, it cannot legitimately be inferred from the links to her son that she may have contributed to compromising the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the existence of a misuse of powers. According to the applicant, the true aim pursued through her listing is, in reality, indirectly to target her son Mr Yevgeniy Prigozhin. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the existence of a misuse of powers. According to the applicant, the true aim pursued through her listing is, in reality, indirectly to target her son Mr Yevgeniy Prigozhin.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that the lack of precision in the reasons for her listing prevent her from usefully challenging them. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that the lack of precision in the reasons for her listing prevent her from usefully challenging them.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that the restrictive measures applied to her are disproportionate in that they prevent the attainment of the objective pursued by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that the restrictive measures applied to her are disproportionate in that they prevent the attainment of the objective pursued by the Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 42 I, p. 98).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 42 I, p. 3).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/63

---

Action brought on 20 April 2022 — Lifestyle Equities v EUIPO — Greenwich Polo Club (GREENWICH POLO CLUB)

(Case T-217/22)

(2022/C 237/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Terpstra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. (Greenwich, Connecticut, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark GREENWICH POLO CLUB — European Union trade mark No 2 919 256

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2022 in Case R 1063/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/64

---

Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)

(Case T-218/22)

(2022/C 237/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wallmax Srl (Milano, 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 (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles) — European Union trade mark No 7 376 023

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2022 in Case R 1093/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO for reconsideration; or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO for reconsideration; or

| — | alter the contested decision by removing the last sentence of paragraph 31 from the decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision by removing the last sentence of paragraph 31 from the decision; and

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in these proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/65

---

Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Wallmax v EUIPO — Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)

(Case T-219/22)

(2022/C 237/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and G. Rapaccini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles) — European Union trade mark No 7 376 023

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2022 in Case R 1093/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the contested decision, in the part in which the Second Board of Appeal holds that the contested trademark is not invalid pursuant to Article 7(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the following goods: Class 6 — Cable and pipe penetration seals, made from metal; sealing frames made from metal; Class 17 — Sealing frames, made from plastic or rubber; Class 19 — Non-metallic rigid pipes for building; non-metallic sealing frames; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested decision, in the part in which the Second Board of Appeal holds that the contested trademark is not invalid pursuant to Article 7(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the following goods: Class 6 — Cable and pipe penetration seals, made from metal; sealing frames made from metal; Class 17 — Sealing frames, made from plastic or rubber; Class 19 — Non-metallic rigid pipes for building; non-metallic sealing frames;

| — | partially annul the contested decision, in the part in which the Second Board of Appeal annulled the Cancellation Division’s decision in relation to the decision on costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested decision, in the part in which the Second Board of Appeal annulled the Cancellation Division’s decision in relation to the decision on costs;

| — | as a consequence of the above, uphold EUIPO’s Cancellation Division decision rendered on 23 April 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence of the above, uphold EUIPO’s Cancellation Division decision rendered on 23 April 2021;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/65

---

Action brought on 25 April 2022 — CiviBank v ECB

(Case T-220/22)

(2022/C 237/85)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Banca di Cividale SpA — Società Benefit (CiviBank) (Cividale del Friuli, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, A. Cassano and A. Cogoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) (ECB-SSM-2022-IT-7 (QLF-2021-0155)) of 23 March 2022 (contained in a single act or in several acts) by which the ECB authorised Banca Sparkasse and Fondazione Sparkasse to: (i) acquire and maintain a shareholding higher than 10 % of the share capital and voting rights of CiviBank; (ii) exceed that shareholding and acquire directly a controlling shareholding in CiviBank, following, and as a result of, the public global voluntary tender offers launched on the market on 9 December 2021 under Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) of 15 October 2013, Articles 19, 22, 53 and 67 of the Consolidated Banking Law and its related implementing rules. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) (ECB-SSM-2022-IT-7 (QLF-2021-0155)) of 23 March 2022 (contained in a single act or in several acts) by which the ECB authorised Banca Sparkasse and Fondazione Sparkasse to: (i) acquire and maintain a shareholding higher than 10 % of the share capital and voting rights of CiviBank; (ii) exceed that shareholding and acquire directly a controlling shareholding in CiviBank, following, and as a result of, the public global voluntary tender offers launched on the market on 9 December 2021 under Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) of 15 October 2013, Articles 19, 22, 53 and 67 of the Consolidated Banking Law and its related implementing rules.

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging incorrect application of Article 23 of Directive 2013/36, infringement of Article 86 of Regulation 468/2014 and of Article 49 TFEU and breach of the general principle of EU law of non-discrimination in assessing the suitability of the purchaser. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging incorrect application of Article 23 of Directive 2013/36, infringement of Article 86 of Regulation 468/2014 and of Article 49 TFEU and breach of the general principle of EU law of non-discrimination in assessing the suitability of the purchaser.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision and resulting infringement of Article 296 TFEU, of the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the corresponding general legal principles which can be inferred from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision and resulting infringement of Article 296 TFEU, of the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the corresponding general legal principles which can be inferred from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

---

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

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/66

---

Action brought on 25 April 2022 — Pharmaselect International v EUIPO — OmniActive Health Technologies (LUTAMAX)

(Case T-221/22)

(2022/C 237/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmaselect International Beteiligungs GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Jackermeier and D. Wiedemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OmniActive Health Technologies Ltd (Mumbai, India)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark LUTAMAX — European Union trade mark No 3 472 974

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2022 in Joined Cases R 524/2021-1 and R 649/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that European Union trademark No 3 472 974 LUTAMAX remain registered for the following goods:
  Class 5: Medicines for human and animals use; Dietetic substances adapted for medical use; Dietary supplements adapted for medical or dietetic use; Vitamin preparations adapted for medical or dietetic use; Eye care preparations (for pharmaceutical purposes); none of the aforesaid goods for veterinary purposes;
  Class 29: Dietetic foodstuffs and food supplements, not adapted for medical use (included in class 29); Edible oils and fats;
  Class 30: Dietetic foodstuffs and food supplements, not adapted for medical use (included in class 30); |
| --- | --- |

—

order that European Union trademark No 3 472 974 LUTAMAX remain registered for the following goods:

Class 5: Medicines for human and animals use; Dietetic substances adapted for medical use; Dietary supplements adapted for medical or dietetic use; Vitamin preparations adapted for medical or dietetic use; Eye care preparations (for pharmaceutical purposes); none of the aforesaid goods for veterinary purposes;

Class 29: Dietetic foodstuffs and food supplements, not adapted for medical use (included in class 29); Edible oils and fats;

Class 30: Dietetic foodstuffs and food supplements, not adapted for medical use (included in class 30);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/67

---

Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Engineering — Ingegneria Informatica v Commission and REA

(Case T-222/22)

(2022/C 237/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Engineering — Ingegneria Informatica SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Villata, L. Montevecchi and C. Oncia, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission, European Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | either declare that (a) ‘Letter of Conclusion — ref. Ares (2021) 7900224’ of 21 December 2021 from the European Commission (Directorate-General for Research & Innovation, Directorate H — Common Implementation Centre H.2 — Common Audit Service) — ref. CAIA389007; (b) the Final Audit Report annexed to the Letter of Conclusion with ref. Ares (2021) 7900224; (c) the ‘Confirmation Letter from the Research Executive Agency (REA) REA C. — Future Society C.2 — Secure Society of 23 February 2022’ (‘the confirmation letter’); and (d) the debit note from the Research Executive Agency No 3242202693 of 23 February 2022 (‘the debit note’) are null and void, unlawful or ineffective, or annul them; |
| --- | --- |

—

either declare that (a) ‘Letter of Conclusion — ref. Ares (2021) 7900224’ of 21 December 2021 from the European Commission (Directorate-General for Research & Innovation, Directorate H — Common Implementation Centre H.2 — Common Audit Service) — ref. CAIA389007; (b) the Final Audit Report annexed to the Letter of Conclusion with ref. Ares (2021) 7900224; (c) the ‘Confirmation Letter from the Research Executive Agency (REA) REA C. — Future Society C.2 — Secure Society of 23 February 2022’ (‘the confirmation letter’); and (d) the debit note from the Research Executive Agency No 3242202693 of 23 February 2022 (‘the debit note’) are null and void, unlawful or ineffective, or annul them;

| — | declare (a) that the excluded costs are eligible as they constitute Eligible Costs within the meaning of the ‘Dogana’ Grant Agreement, (b) that, consequently, Engineering is entitled to have the costs considered to be eligible for the purpose of determining the overall amount of the subsidies provided for in the agreement referred to above and (c) that, in any event, the Commission is not entitled to recover those sums; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare (a) that the excluded costs are eligible as they constitute Eligible Costs within the meaning of the ‘Dogana’ Grant Agreement, (b) that, consequently, Engineering is entitled to have the costs considered to be eligible for the purpose of determining the overall amount of the subsidies provided for in the agreement referred to above and (c) that, in any event, the Commission is not entitled to recover those sums;

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misapplication by the European Commission and the Research Executive Agency of the provisions of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant and that agency are parties.






  — | The applicant claims, in that regard, that the confirmation letter and the debit note are based on the outcome of an audit by the European Commission which unlawfully excluded bonuses given to employees on the basis of general objectives from the Eligible Costs within the meaning of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant was a party, for the purposes of benefitting from the subsidies set out therein. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication by the European Commission and the Research Executive Agency of the provisions of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant and that agency are parties.

—

The applicant claims, in that regard, that the confirmation letter and the debit note are based on the outcome of an audit by the European Commission which unlawfully excluded bonuses given to employees on the basis of general objectives from the Eligible Costs within the meaning of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant was a party, for the purposes of benefitting from the subsidies set out therein.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.






  — | The applicant claims, in that regard, that, in the present context of the subsidy schemes in which the applicant participated (in particular, the ‘7th Framework Programme’), the remuneration scheme that was excluded by the contested measures, despite having been examined by the European Commission, had previously been accepted unreservedly. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

—

The applicant claims, in that regard, that, in the present context of the subsidy schemes in which the applicant participated (in particular, the ‘7th Framework Programme’), the remuneration scheme that was excluded by the contested measures, despite having been examined by the European Commission, had previously been accepted unreservedly.

| — | Therefore, the change in the Authority’s assessment in favour of excluding the bonuses, for which they offered no explanation, constitutes an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, which has been upheld a number of times by the Court of Justice and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Therefore, the change in the Authority’s assessment in favour of excluding the bonuses, for which they offered no explanation, constitutes an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, which has been upheld a number of times by the Court of Justice and the General Court.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the ‘Dogana’ Grant Agreement and of the relevant contractual terms, as eligible costs were excluded on that basis of the wording of that agreement for the reasons put forward in the first plea in law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the ‘Dogana’ Grant Agreement and of the relevant contractual terms, as eligible costs were excluded on that basis of the wording of that agreement for the reasons put forward in the first plea in law.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/68

---

Action brought on 27 April 2022 — Casablanca Clothing v EUIPO — Adrien (CASABLANCA TENNIS CLUB)

(Case T-228/22)

(2022/C 237/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Casablanca Clothing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Cléry and C. Devernay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Adrien SARL (Marseille, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark CASABLANCA TENNIS CLUB — International registration designating the European Union No 1 471 645

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2022 in Case R 1186/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | register the European part of the international mark CASABLANCA TENNIS CLUB No 1 471 645; |
| --- | --- |

—

register the European part of the international mark CASABLANCA TENNIS CLUB No 1 471 645;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

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

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/69

---

Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover)

(Case T-231/22)

(2022/C 237/89)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark doglover — Application No 18 107 487

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2022 in Case R 720/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/69

---

Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (catlover)

(Case T-232/22)

(2022/C 237/90)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark catlover — Application No 18 107 485

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2022 in Case R 717/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/70

---

Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Islentyeva v Council

(Case T-233/22)

(2022/C 237/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ekaterina Islentyeva (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare admissible the present application for annulment brought on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the present application for annulment brought on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | on the substance of the case, annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/335 (OJ 2022 L. 57, p. 4) of 28 February 2022 amending Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13) and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/334 (OJ 2022 L 5, p. 1) of 28 February 2022 amending Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the substance of the case, annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/335 (OJ 2022 L. 57, p. 4) of 28 February 2022 amending Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13) and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/334 (OJ 2022 L 5, p. 1) of 28 February 2022 amending Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine;

| — | alternatively, annul the relevant measures of the contested acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the relevant measures of the contested acts;

| — | consequently, recognise Ms Islentyeva’s right to use her private pilot licence and to take off, fly over and land on the territory of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, recognise Ms Islentyeva’s right to use her private pilot licence and to take off, fly over and land on the territory of the European Union;

| — | in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons provided for in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant claims in that regard that in the present case the contested acts do not set out clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution, the author of the act, which means that the applicant cannot ascertain the reasons for the measure adopted and prevents the competent court from exercising its power of review. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons provided for in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant claims in that regard that in the present case the contested acts do not set out clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution, the author of the act, which means that the applicant cannot ascertain the reasons for the measure adopted and prevents the competent court from exercising its power of review.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits that the restrictive measures that prohibit the use of their private pilot licence by any European citizen who is also a Russian national are disproportionate and are not necessary in the light of the objectives pursued. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits that the restrictive measures that prohibit the use of their private pilot licence by any European citizen who is also a Russian national are disproportionate and are not necessary in the light of the objectives pursued.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 21 TEU. The applicant submits that the restrictive measures adopted are not compatible with the values of the rule of law and the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 21 TEU. The applicant submits that the restrictive measures adopted are not compatible with the values of the rule of law and the principle of non-discrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 18 TFEU. The applicant who has dual Russian and Luxemburgish nationality considers that she is subject to discrimination in so far as, first, she is treated differently from other European citizens who continue to enjoy the right to use their pilot licence and, secondly, she is treated in the same way as all Russian citizens even though she is in a different situation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 18 TFEU. The applicant who has dual Russian and Luxemburgish nationality considers that she is subject to discrimination in so far as, first, she is treated differently from other European citizens who continue to enjoy the right to use their pilot licence and, secondly, she is treated in the same way as all Russian citizens even though she is in a different situation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant claims that the restrictive measures that she is subject to prevent her from enjoying the free movement of persons in so far as she is prevented from flying over the territory of France, Germany and Belgium. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant claims that the restrictive measures that she is subject to prevent her from enjoying the free movement of persons in so far as she is prevented from flying over the territory of France, Germany and Belgium.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/71

---

Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Ismailova v Council

(Case T-234/22)

(2022/C 237/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gulbakhor Ismailova (Tachkent, Uzbekistan) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily, annul:






  — | Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, (1) regarding Ms Ismailova; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

primarily, annul:

—

Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, (1) regarding Ms Ismailova;

| — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, (2) regarding Ms Ismailova; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, (2) regarding Ms Ismailova;

| — | Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; (3) |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; (3)

| — | Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4) |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4)

| — | in the alternative, annul:






  — | Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, regarding Ms Ismailova; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul:

—

Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, regarding Ms Ismailova;

| — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, regarding Ms Ismailova; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, regarding Ms Ismailova;

| — | Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022;

| — | Article 1(f) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 1(f) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022;

| — | in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay Ms Ismailova the sum of EUR 20 000 pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in respect of the costs which she had to incur for the protection of her interests. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay Ms Ismailova the sum of EUR 20 000 pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in respect of the costs which she had to incur for the protection of her interests.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the new criteria set out by the Council and made clear by Council Decision No 2022/329/CFSP of 25 February 2022 and by Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 are unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the new criteria set out by the Council and made clear by Council Decision No 2022/329/CFSP of 25 February 2022 and by Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 are unlawful.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful in that it is based on unlawful criteria. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful in that it is based on unlawful criteria.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful Due to the failure to demonstrate the fundamental criterion that the person concerned provided support for the current war in Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful Due to the failure to demonstrate the fundamental criterion that the person concerned provided support for the current war in Ukraine.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful in so far as the Council fails to comply with the obligation to state reasons and the burden of proof of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful in so far as the Council fails to comply with the obligation to state reasons and the burden of proof of the Council.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful in the absence of well-founded reasons set out by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful in the absence of well-founded reasons set out by the Council.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property of the applicant.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the commercial freedom and the freedom to come and go of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the commercial freedom and the freedom to come and go of the applicant.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1).

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/72

---

Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Russian Direct Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-235/22)

(2022/C 237/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Russian Direct Investment Fund (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: K. Scordis and A. Gavrielides, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/346 of 1 March 2022 amending Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (1) (the Contested Decision); and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/345 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (2) (the Contested Regulation; together, the Contested Acts), in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/346 of 1 March 2022 amending Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (1) (the Contested Decision); and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/345 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (2) (the Contested Regulation; together, the Contested Acts), in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant;

| — | alternatively, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare that paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 4b of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (as amended) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2e of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (as amended) are inapplicable and/or void in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and annul the Contested Decision and the Contested Regulation in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare that paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 4b of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (as amended) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2e of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (as amended) are inapplicable and/or void in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and annul the Contested Decision and the Contested Regulation in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging absence of a ‘sufficiently solid factual basis’ for imposing the restrictive measures concerning the applicant.
  The Council manifestly failed to comply with its obligation to ensure that the decision to impose the restrictive measures imposed with respect to the applicant or engagement with or co-operation with the applicant was taken on ‘a sufficiently solid factual basis’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging absence of a ‘sufficiently solid factual basis’ for imposing the restrictive measures concerning the applicant.

The Council manifestly failed to comply with its obligation to ensure that the decision to impose the restrictive measures imposed with respect to the applicant or engagement with or co-operation with the applicant was taken on ‘a sufficiently solid factual basis’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights of defence and effective judicial protection.
  In adopting the Contested Acts, the Council infringed the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection in that:






  — | the Contested Acts were adopted without notifying the applicant, either prior to the adoption of the Contested Acts or within a reasonable time thereafter; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights of defence and effective judicial protection.

In adopting the Contested Acts, the Council infringed the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection in that:

—

the Contested Acts were adopted without notifying the applicant, either prior to the adoption of the Contested Acts or within a reasonable time thereafter;

| — | the applicant was never provided with even a summary of reasons for the adoption of the Contested Acts (to the extent that they concern or apply to the applicant); |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant was never provided with even a summary of reasons for the adoption of the Contested Acts (to the extent that they concern or apply to the applicant);

| — | the defendant never disclosed to the applicant the evidence relied on as the basis of its decision to adopt the Contested Acts and never gave the applicant the opportunity to make comments and defend its rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

the defendant never disclosed to the applicant the evidence relied on as the basis of its decision to adopt the Contested Acts and never gave the applicant the opportunity to make comments and defend its rights.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement in the form of disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business.
  In adopting the Contested Acts, the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business in that:






  — | the Contested Acts significantly restrict the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement in the form of disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business.

In adopting the Contested Acts, the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business in that:

—

the Contested Acts significantly restrict the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business;

| — | the Contested Acts impair the essence of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Contested Acts impair the essence of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | the Council’s failure to comply with its legal obligations (including its obligation to give reasons and disclose the evidence on which the Contested Acts were based) makes it impossible for the Court to assess and determine whether the relevant restrictive measures are (a) necessary and genuinely meet the pursued objectives of general interest; and (b) proportionate to the objective pursued; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Council’s failure to comply with its legal obligations (including its obligation to give reasons and disclose the evidence on which the Contested Acts were based) makes it impossible for the Court to assess and determine whether the relevant restrictive measures are (a) necessary and genuinely meet the pursued objectives of general interest; and (b) proportionate to the objective pursued;

| — | in any event the restrictive measures in question are not necessary and do not genuinely meet the pursued objective as the applicant’s activities and the projects co-financed by the applicant do not contribute to the ‘military aggression against Ukraine’ or finance, enable or assist the actions of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event the restrictive measures in question are not necessary and do not genuinely meet the pursued objective as the applicant’s activities and the projects co-financed by the applicant do not contribute to the ‘military aggression against Ukraine’ or finance, enable or assist the actions of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 63, p. 5.

(2)  OJ 2022 L 63, p. 1.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/73

---

Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Intel Corporation v Commission

(Case T-236/22)

(2022/C 237/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intel Corporation Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. Beard, J. Williams, Barristers-at-law and B. Meyring, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| a. | order the Commission to pay compensation of EUR 593 177 661,75, corresponding to: default interest on the principal amount of EUR 1 060 000 000 at the ECB refinancing rate on the first calendar day of the month in which the Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 (the ‘Decision’), was adopted (namely 1,25 %) increased by 3,5 percentage points (or failing that at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court), for the period from 13 August 2009 (the date of provisional payment of the fine by Intel) to 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the Commission), minus the interest amount already paid to Intel by the Commission of EUR 38 059 598,52; |
| --- | --- |

a.

order the Commission to pay compensation of EUR 593 177 661,75, corresponding to: default interest on the principal amount of EUR 1 060 000 000 at the ECB refinancing rate on the first calendar day of the month in which the Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 (the ‘Decision’), was adopted (namely 1,25 %) increased by 3,5 percentage points (or failing that at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court), for the period from 13 August 2009 (the date of provisional payment of the fine by Intel) to 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the Commission), minus the interest amount already paid to Intel by the Commission of EUR 38 059 598,52;

| b. | order the Commission to pay interest on the amount requested at paragraph (a) above for the period from 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the Commission), or alternatively from 28 April 2022 (the date of the present action), or, in the further alternative, from the date of judgment in the present action, up to the date on which the Commission actually pays the amount in pursuance of a judgment upholding the present action, at the interest rate applied by the ECB to refinancing operations increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

b.

order the Commission to pay interest on the amount requested at paragraph (a) above for the period from 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the Commission), or alternatively from 28 April 2022 (the date of the present action), or, in the further alternative, from the date of judgment in the present action, up to the date on which the Commission actually pays the amount in pursuance of a judgment upholding the present action, at the interest rate applied by the ECB to refinancing operations increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court;

| c. | further or alternatively:






  i. | annul any decision of the Commission, including any set out in the Commission’s e-mail dated 1 March 2022, refusing the reimbursement of default interest and order it do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) above; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

c.

further or alternatively:

i.

annul any decision of the Commission, including any set out in the Commission’s e-mail dated 1 March 2022, refusing the reimbursement of default interest and order it do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) above; or

| ii. | alternatively, declare that the Commission has acted unlawfully by failing to pay Intel default interest on the principal amount of a fine reimbursed following the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 Intel, and order it do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) above. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

alternatively, declare that the Commission has acted unlawfully by failing to pay Intel default interest on the principal amount of a fine reimbursed following the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 Intel, and order it do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

| d. | in any event, order the Commission to pay Intel’s costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

d.

in any event, order the Commission to pay Intel’s costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU in conjunction with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the applicant seeks payment of compensation and consequential interest for the damage sustained because of the European Commission’s refusal to pay Intel default interest on the principal amount of a fine reimbursed following the annulment, by judgment T-286/09 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2022:19, of Article 2 of the Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 Intel. In this regard, the applicant relies upon the requirement to take necessary measures to comply with the annulment of a fine pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, which includes the payment of default interest. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU in conjunction with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the applicant seeks payment of compensation and consequential interest for the damage sustained because of the European Commission’s refusal to pay Intel default interest on the principal amount of a fine reimbursed following the annulment, by judgment T-286/09 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2022:19, of Article 2 of the Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 Intel. In this regard, the applicant relies upon the requirement to take necessary measures to comply with the annulment of a fine pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, which includes the payment of default interest.

| 2. | Second, further or in the alternative, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the applicant seeks the annulment of any decision of the Commission refusing the reimbursement of default interest, at the rate referred to above, on the basis that it is contrary to Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second, further or in the alternative, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the applicant seeks the annulment of any decision of the Commission refusing the reimbursement of default interest, at the rate referred to above, on the basis that it is contrary to Article 266 TFEU.

| 3. | Third, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU in the further alternative, to the extent the Commission has not adopted a final position (despite requests from the applicant), the applicant seeks a declaration that the Commission has acted unlawfully by failing to pay Intel the said default interest pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, and an order that the European Commission pay that default interest at the rate referred to above. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU in the further alternative, to the extent the Commission has not adopted a final position (despite requests from the applicant), the applicant seeks a declaration that the Commission has acted unlawfully by failing to pay Intel the said default interest pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, and an order that the European Commission pay that default interest at the rate referred to above.

| 4. | Strictly in the alternative, the applicant avers that any contrary interpretation of the 2002, 2012 and/or 2018 Regulation(s) that would exclude the payment of default interest in accordance with Article 266 TFEU, as interpreted by the CJEU and GC, would have the consequence that the relevant provisions would be in breach of primary EU law. In those circumstances, the applicant raises an alternative plea of illegality under Article 266 TFEU and Article 277 TFEU on an alternative, contingent basis. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Strictly in the alternative, the applicant avers that any contrary interpretation of the 2002, 2012 and/or 2018 Regulation(s) that would exclude the payment of default interest in accordance with Article 266 TFEU, as interpreted by the CJEU and GC, would have the consequence that the relevant provisions would be in breach of primary EU law. In those circumstances, the applicant raises an alternative plea of illegality under Article 266 TFEU and Article 277 TFEU on an alternative, contingent basis.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/75

---

Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO)

(Case T-239/22)

(2022/C 237/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cherusci Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LexDellmeier Intellectual Property Law Firm (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark RIALTO — EU trade mark No 11 706 546

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2022 in Case R 695/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/75

---

Action brought on 3 May 2022 — OmniActive Health Technologies v EUIPO — Pharmaselect International (LUTAMAX)

(Case T-242/22)

(2022/C 237/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: OmniActive Health Technologies Ltd (Mumbai, India) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pharmaselect International Beteiligungs GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark LUTAMAX — European Union trade mark No 3 472 974

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2022 in Joined Cases R 524/2021-1 and R 649/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the contested decision to the extent that it ordered EUTM No 3472974 LUTAMAX to remain on the register for ‘Dietary supplements adapted for medical or dietetic use for supporting eye health, none of the aforesaid goods for veterinary purposes’; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested decision to the extent that it ordered EUTM No 3472974 LUTAMAX to remain on the register for ‘Dietary supplements adapted for medical or dietetic use for supporting eye health, none of the aforesaid goods for veterinary purposes’;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and/or the other party before the Board of Appeal (assuming it intervenes in the proceedings). |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and/or the other party before the Board of Appeal (assuming it intervenes in the proceedings).

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | 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;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/76

---

Action brought on 4 May 2022 — PGTEX Morocco v Commission

(Case T-245/22)

(2022/C 237/97)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PGTEX Morocco (Tanger, Morocco) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and T. Martin-Brieu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/302 of 24 February 2022 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776, on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) to imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not, and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 on imports of GFF originating in Egypt by imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/302 of 24 February 2022 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776, on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) to imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not, and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 on imports of GFF originating in Egypt by imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of the Association Agreement and Article 22 of the basic Regulation and the Contested Regulation is vitiated by misuse of powers since it imposes anti-dumping measures against the preferential Moroccan origin GFF exported by the applicant without having determined that imports were ‘dumped’ in accordance with Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘GATT’) and without such measures being consistent with the Agreement relating to the application of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (‘ADA’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of the Association Agreement and Article 22 of the basic Regulation and the Contested Regulation is vitiated by misuse of powers since it imposes anti-dumping measures against the preferential Moroccan origin GFF exported by the applicant without having determined that imports were ‘dumped’ in accordance with Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘GATT’) and without such measures being consistent with the Agreement relating to the application of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (‘ADA’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to state reasons, breached the applicant’s rights of defence, violated the right to sound administration, committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 18(1) and Article 18(3) of the basic Regulation by applying facts available against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to state reasons, breached the applicant’s rights of defence, violated the right to sound administration, committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 18(1) and Article 18(3) of the basic Regulation by applying facts available against the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in violation of the right to sound administration and in breach of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the establishment of the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in violation of the right to sound administration and in breach of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the establishment of the applicant; and

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of the right to sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment and Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation by relying on the finding that the manufacturing process carried out in Morocco constitutes an ‘assembly operation’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of the right to sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment and Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation by relying on the finding that the manufacturing process carried out in Morocco constitutes an ‘assembly operation’.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 46, p. 49.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/77

---

Action brought on 4 May 2022 — PGTEX Morocco v Commission

(Case T-246/22)

(2022/C 237/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PGTEX Morocco (Tanger, Morocco) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and T. Martin-Brieu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/301 of 24 February 2022 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not, and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the countervailing measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 on imports of GFF originating in Egypt by imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/301 of 24 February 2022 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not, and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the countervailing measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 on imports of GFF originating in Egypt by imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

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 that the defendant acted in breach of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (‘Association Agreement’), acted in breach of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (‘basic Regulation’) and committed a misuse of powers by imposing countervailing duties, without considering the preferential Moroccan origin of GFF exported by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (‘Association Agreement’), acted in breach of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (‘basic Regulation’) and committed a misuse of powers by imposing countervailing duties, without considering the preferential Moroccan origin of GFF exported by the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to state reasons, breached the applicant’s rights of defence, violated the right to sound administration, committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 28(1) and Article 28(3) of the basic Regulation by applying facts available against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to state reasons, breached the applicant’s rights of defence, violated the right to sound administration, committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 28(1) and Article 28(3) of the basic Regulation by applying facts available against the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in violation of the right to sound administration and in breach of Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the establishment of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in violation of the right to sound administration and in breach of Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the establishment of the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of the right to sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment and Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation by relying on the finding that the manufacturing process carried out in Morocco constitutes an ‘assembly operation’; and |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of the right to sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment and Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation by relying on the finding that the manufacturing process carried out in Morocco constitutes an ‘assembly operation’; and

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 23(3) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation by considering that the applicant’s GFF still benefit from subsidies granted to Chinese GFF producers. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 23(3) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation by considering that the applicant’s GFF still benefit from subsidies granted to Chinese GFF producers.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 46, p. 31.

---

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/78

---

Action brought on 9 May 2022 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)

(Case T-253/22)

(2022/C 237/99)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groschopp AG Drives & More (Viersen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Sustainability through Quality’ — Application for registration No 18 158 368

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2022 in Case R 1076/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---