EN
17.1.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/11
Appeal brought on 3 June 2021 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-282/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO (Case C-345/21 P) (2022/C 24/14) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: S. Malynicz, BL, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor) Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office By order of 23 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi should bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2021 — J.K., B.K. v Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X (Case C-452/21) (2022/C 24/15) Language of the case: Polish Referring court Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie
Parties to the main proceedings Appellants: J.K., B.K. Respondent: Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X
Question referred Must Article 191(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 7, 17 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) and Articles 2, 8 and 9 of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, (1) be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of a provision of national law, namely Article 129(4) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 kwietnia 2001 r. — Prawo ochrony środowiska (Environmental Protection Law of 27 April 2001), which provides for a time limit of three years for bringing a claim related to a restriction on the manner of use of property, and which prevents the owners of property within a restricted use area associated with the operation of an airport from obtaining compensation for a reduction in the value of their property and reimbursement for the costs of soundproofing, as in the present case?
(1)
OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12.