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

(2021/C 297/01)

Last publication

OJ C 289, 19.7.2021

Past publications

OJ C 278, 12.7.2021

OJ C 263, 5.7.2021

OJ C 252, 28.6.2021

OJ C 242, 21.6.2021

OJ C 228, 14.6.2021

OJ C 217, 7.6.2021

These texts are available on:

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

Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

(2021/C 297/02)

On 6 July 2021, the General Court decided, following the entry into office of Ms Brkan as Judge of the General Court, to amend the decision on the formation of the Chambers of 30 September 2019 (1), as amended (2), and the decision on the assignment of Judges to Chambers of 4 October 2019 (3), as amended (4), for the period from 6 July 2021 to 31 August 2022 and to assign the Judges to Chambers as follows:

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

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

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Jaeger and Ms Półtorak, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Jaeger and Ms Porchia, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Jaeger and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Półtorak and Ms Porchia, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Półtorak and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Porchia and Ms Stancu, Judges.

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

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

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Tomljenović, President of the Chamber;

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

Formation B: Mr Schalin and Mr Nõmm, Judges;

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

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

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

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Collins, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Kreuschitz and Mr Csehi, Judges;

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

Formation C: Mr Kreuschitz and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

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

Formation E: Mr Csehi and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

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

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

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

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Gervasoni, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Madise and Mr Nihoul, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Madise and Ms Frendo, Judges;

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

Formation D: Mr Nihoul and Ms Frendo, Judges;

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

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

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

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

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Spielmann, President of the Chamber;

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

Formation B: Mr Öberg and Mr Mastroianni, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Öberg and Ms Brkan, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Spineanu-Matei and Mr Mastroianni, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Spineanu-Matei and Ms Brkan, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Mastroianni and Ms Brkan, Judges.

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

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

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Marcoulli, President of the Chamber;

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

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

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

Formation D: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Iliopoulos, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Iliopoulos and Mr Norkus, Judges.

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

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

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr da Silva Passos, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Valančius and Ms Reine, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Valančius and Mr Truchot, Judges;

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

Formation D: Ms Reine and Mr Truchot, Judges;

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

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

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

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

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Svenningsen, President of the Chamber;

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

Formation B: Mr Barents and Ms Pynnä, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Barents and Mr Laitenberger, Judges;

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

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

Formation F: Ms Pynnä and Mr Laitenberger, Judges.

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

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

Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Costeira, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Gratsias and Ms Kancheva, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Gratsias and Mr Berke, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Gratsias and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Kancheva and Mr Berke, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Kancheva and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Berke and Ms Perišin, Judges.

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

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

Tenth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kornezov, President of the Chamber;

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

Formation B: Mr Buttigieg and Mr Hesse, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Buttigieg and Mr Petrlík, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Hesse, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Petrlík, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Hesse and Mr Petrlík, Judges.

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

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

It also confirms that:

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

—

in the course of each judicial year, the Vice-President shall sit in each of the ten Chambers sitting with five Judges, on the basis of one case per Chamber in the following order: — the first case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the First Chamber, the Second Chamber, the Third Chamber, the Fourth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber; — the third case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the Sixth Chamber, the Seventh Chamber, the Eighth Chamber, the Ninth Chamber and the Tenth Chamber.

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

—

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

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

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019, p. 3.

(2)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020, p. 2; OJ C 114, 6.4.2020, p. 2; OJ C 371, 4.11.2020, p. 2; and OJ C 110, 29.3.2021, p. 2.

(3)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019, p. 3.

(4)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020, p. 2; OJ C 114, 6.4.2020, p. 2; OJ C 371, 4.11.2020, p. 2; and OJ C 110, 2021, 29.3.2021, p. 2.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v WR

(Case C-279/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - General arrangements for excise duty - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 33(3) - Goods ‘released for consumption’ in one Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State - Person liable to pay the excise duty that has become chargeable in respect of those goods - Person holding the goods intended for delivery in another Member State - Transporter of the goods)

(2021/C 297/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: WR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(3) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a person who transports, on behalf of others, excise goods to another Member State, and who is in physical possession of those goods at the moment when they have become chargeable to the corresponding excise duty, is liable for that excise duty, under that provision, even if that person has no right to or interest in those goods and is not aware that they are subject to excise duty or, if so aware, is not aware that they have become chargeable to the corresponding excise duty.

---

(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2021 — European Commission v Fernando De Esteban Alonso

(Case C-591/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Internal investigation by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) - Forwarding of information by OLAF to the national judicial authorities - Filing of a complaint by the European Commission - Concepts of an official who is ‘referred to by name’ and ‘implicated’ - Failure to inform the interested party - Commission’s right to file a complaint with the national judicial authorities before the conclusion of OLAF’s investigation - Action for damages)

(2021/C 297/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (represented by: C. Huglo, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 June 2019, De Esteban Alonso v Commission (T-138/18, EU:T:2019:398);

2.	Dismisses the action in Case T-138/18;

3.	Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Lagny-sur-Marne — France) — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v VE

(Case C-609/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency (Swiss francs) - Article 4(2) - Main subject matter of the contract - Terms exposing the borrower to a foreign exchange risk - Requirements of intelligibility and transparency - Article 3(1) - Significant imbalance - Article 5 - Contractual term that is in plain, intelligible language)

(2021/C 297/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Lagny-sur-Marne

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

Defendant: VE

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that terms of the loan agreement which stipulate that repayments at fixed intervals are allocated first to interest and which provide, in order to pay the account balance, for an extension of the term of that agreement and for an increase in monthly instalments come within that provision where those terms lay down an essential element characterising the agreement;

2.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, the requirement of transparency of terms of that agreement, which stipulate that payments at fixed intervals are allocated first to interest and that provide, in order to pay the account balance, for an extension of the term of the agreement and for an increase in monthly instalments, is satisfied where the seller or supplier has provided the consumer with sufficient and accurate information to enable the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to understand the specific functioning of the financial mechanism in question and thus to evaluate the risk of potentially significant adverse economic consequences of such terms on his or her financial obligations throughout the term of the agreement;

3.

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that terms of a loan agreement which stipulate that payments at fixed intervals are allocated first to interest and which provide, in order to pay the account balance, which may increase significantly as a result of variations in the exchange rate between the account currency and the payment currency, for an extension of the term of the agreement and for an increase in monthly instalments, are liable to cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under that agreement, to the detriment of the consumer, where the seller or supplier could not reasonably expect, in compliance with the requirement of transparency in relation to the consumer, that the consumer would have agreed, in individual contract negotiations, to a disproportionate foreign exchange risk as a result of those terms.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — France) — VB, WA (C-776/19), XZ, YY (C-777/19), ZX (C-778/19), DY, EX (C-781/19) v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA and AV (C-779/19), BW, CX (C-780/19), FA (C-782/19) v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Procureur de la République

(Joined Cases C-776/19 to C-782/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency (Swiss francs) - Limitation - Article 4(2) - Main subject matter of the contract - Terms exposing the borrower to a foreign exchange risk - Requirements of intelligibility and transparency - Burden of proof - Article 3(1) - Significant imbalance - Article 5 - Contractual term that is in plain, intelligible language - Principle of effectiveness)

(2021/C 297/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VB, WA (C-776/19), XZ, YY (C-777/19), ZX (C-778/19), DY, EX (C-781/19), AV (C-779/19), BW, CX (C-780/19), FA (C-782/19)

Defendants: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Procureur de la République

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the submission of a claim by a consumer: — for a declaration that a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and that consumer is unfair subject to a limitation period; — for repayment of sums paid but not due, on the basis of such unfair terms, subject to a five-year limitation period, where that period begins to run from the date of acceptance of the loan offer such that, at that time, the consumer may have been unaware of all of the rights that he or she has under that directive.

2.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that terms of a loan agreement which provide that the foreign currency is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency and which have the effect that the foreign exchange risk is borne by the borrower come within that provision where those terms lay down an essential element characterising the agreement.

3.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, the requirement of transparency of terms of that agreement, which provide that the foreign currency is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency and which have the effect that the foreign exchange risk is borne by the borrower, is satisfied where the seller or supplier has provided the consumer with sufficient and accurate information to enable the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to understand the specific functioning of the financial mechanism in question and thus to evaluate the risk of potentially significant adverse economic consequences of such terms on his or her financial obligations throughout the term of the agreement.

4.	Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the burden of proving that a contractual term is plain and intelligible, for the purposes of Article 4(2) of that directive, from being borne by the consumer.

5.

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that terms of a loan agreement which provide that the foreign currency is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency and which have the effect that the foreign exchange risk, without being subject to an upper limit, is borne by the borrower, are liable to cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under that agreement, to the detriment of the consumer, where the seller or supplier could not reasonably expect, in compliance with the requirement of transparency in relation to the consumer, that the consumer would have agreed, in individual contract negotiations, to a disproportionate foreign exchange risk as a result of those terms.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — CF, DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-901/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Conditions for granting subsidiary protection - Article 15(c) - Concept of ‘serious and individual threat’ to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict - National legislation requiring a minimum number of civilian casualties (killed and injured) in the relevant region)

(2021/C 297/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CF, DN

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 15(c) of 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, must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of national legislation according to which, where a civilian is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his or her personal circumstances, a finding of serious and individual threat to that civilian’s life or person by reason of ‘indiscriminate violence in situations of … armed conflict’, within the meaning of that provision, is subject to the condition that the ratio between the number of casualties in the relevant area and the total number of individuals composing the population of that area reach a fixed threshold.

2.

Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether there is a ‘serious and individual threat’, within the meaning of that provision, a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case, in particular those which characterise the situation of the applicant’s country of origin, is required.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ‘s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — LH v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-921/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 40(2) - Subsequent application - New elements or findings - Concept - Documents the authenticity of which cannot be established or the source of which cannot be objectively verified - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 4(1) and (2) - Assessment of the evidence - Obligation of the Member State concerned to cooperate)

(2021/C 297/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LH

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 40(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of 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, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which any document submitted by an applicant for international protection in support of a subsequent application is automatically considered not to constitute a ‘new element or finding’, within the meaning of that provision, when the authenticity of that document cannot be established or its source objectively verified;

2.

Article 40 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/95, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the assessment of the evidence submitted in support of an application for international protection cannot vary according to whether the application is a first application or a subsequent application and, second, that a Member State is required to cooperate with an applicant for the purpose of assessing the relevant elements of his or her subsequent application, when that applicant submits, in support of that application, documents the authenticity of which cannot be established.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Van Ameyde España SA v GES, Seguros y Reaseguros SA

(Case C-923/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 1, points 1 and 2 - Article 3, first, second and final paragraphs - Concept of ‘vehicle’ - Obligation to cover damage to property - Scope - Traffic accident involving an articulated vehicle the parts of which are covered by separate compulsory insurance - Damage caused to the semi-trailer by the tractor vehicle to which it was coupled when the accident occurred - Interpretation of national legislation excluding cover for that damage by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of that road tractor)

(2021/C 297/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Van Ameyde España SA

Defendant: GES, Seguros y Reaseguros SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first, second and final paragraphs of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, read in conjunction with Article 1, points 1 and 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude an interpretation of national legislation which excludes from cover, and therefore from compensation, by compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a road tractor, material damage caused by that tractor to the semi-trailer which was coupled to it when the accident occurred.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — VI v KRONE — Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG

(Case C-65/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374/EEC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘defective product’ - Copy of a printed newspaper containing inaccurate health advice - Exclusion from the directive’s scope)

(2021/C 297/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VI

Defendant: KRONE — Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, read in the light of Articles 1 and 6 thereof, as amended by Directive 1999/34, must be interpreted as meaning that a copy of a printed newspaper that, concerning paramedical matters, gives inaccurate health advice relating to the use of a plant which, when followed, has proved injurious to the health of a reader of that newspaper, does not constitute a ‘defective product’ within the meaning of those provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz — Austria) — Land Oberösterreich v KV

(Case C-94/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Article 11 - Right to equal treatment as regards social security, social assistance and social protection - Derogation from the principle of equal treatment in respect of social assistance and social protection - Concept of ‘core benefits’ - Directive 2000/43/EC - Principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Article 2 - Concept of discrimination - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Legislation of a Member State subjecting the grant of housing assistance to third-country nationals who are long-term residents to the condition that they provide proof, in a form specified by that legislation, that they have a basic command of the language of that Member State)

(2021/C 297/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Oberösterreich

Defendant: KV

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 11(1)(d) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding, even where use has been made of the option to apply the derogation provided for in Article 11(4) of that directive, legislation of a Member State under which the grant of housing assistance to third-country nationals who are long-term residents is subject to the condition that they provide proof, in a form specified by that legislation, that they have a basic command of the language of that Member State, if that housing assistance constitutes a ‘core benefit’ within the meaning of that latter provision, this being a matter for the referring court to assess.

2.

Legislation of a Member State which is applicable to all third-country nationals without distinction and under which the grant of housing assistance to third-country nationals who are long-term residents is subject to the condition that they provide proof, in a form specified by that legislation, that they have a basic command of the language of that Member State does not come within the scope of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.

3.

Where use has been made of the option to apply the derogation provided for in Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/109, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is not intended to apply to legislation of a Member State under which the grant of housing assistance to third-country nationals who are long-term residents is subject to the condition that they provide proof, in a form specified by that legislation, that they have a basic command of the language of that Member State, if that housing assistance does not constitute a ‘core benefit’ within the meaning of Article 11(4) of that directive. If the housing assistance in question does constitute such a core benefit, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in so far as it prohibits any discrimination based on ethnic origin, does not preclude such legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Prima banka Slovensko a.s. v HD

(Case C-192/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Mandatory national legislative provisions - Early termination of the loan agreement - Accumulation of loan interest and default interest)

(2021/C 297/12)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prima banka Slovensko a.s.

Respondent: HD

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not being applicable to national provisions under which a consumer who has concluded a loan agreement with a seller or supplier cannot be required, on the basis of the terms of that agreement, in the event of early termination of the term of the loan, to pay to the seller or supplier ordinary interest for the period from the time at which that loan was declared immediately due and payable until the capital borrowed has actually been repaid, since the payment of default interest and of the other contractual penalties due under the terms of that agreement provides compensation for the actual harm suffered by the seller or supplier.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie — Poland) — Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) SA v KM

(Case C-303/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Risk of over-indebtedness - Article 8 - Creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness - Article 23 - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty in the event of infringement of that obligation)

(2021/C 297/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) SA

Defendant: KM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the examination of the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of the penalties provided for in that provision, in the event, inter alia, of the failure to comply with the obligation to examine the creditworthiness of the consumer, laid down in Article 8 of that directive, must be carried out taking into account, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, not only the provision adopted specifically in national law to transpose that directive, but also all the provisions of that law, interpreting them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and objectives of that directive, so that those penalties meet the requirements laid down in Article 23 thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 December 2020 — ‘PONS HOLDING’ AD

(Case C-703/20)

(2021/C 297/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Party to the main proceedings

‘PONS HOLDING’ AD

By order of 6 May 2021, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held:

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria) by decision of 9 December 2020.

Appeal brought on 28 January 2021 by Topcart GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-377/19, Topcart GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-48/21 P)

(2021/C 297/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Topcart GmbH (represented by: M. Hoffmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carl International

By order of 12 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

Appeal brought on 28 January 2021 by Topcart GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-378/19, Topcart GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-49/21 P)

(2021/C 297/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Topcart GmbH (represented by: M. Hoffmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carl International

By order of 12 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

Appeal brought on 2 March 2021 by Production Christian Gallimard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-863/19, Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard

(Case C-143/21 P)

(2021/C 297/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Production Christian Gallimard (represented by: L. Dreyfuss-Bechmann, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA

By order of 5 May 2021 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Production Christian Gallimard shall bear its own costs.

Appeal brought on 1 April 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2021 in Case T-238/20, Ryanair v Commission

(Case C-209/21 P)

(2021/C 297/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F. C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal;

—	declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2366 final of 11 April 2020 on State Aid SA.56812 (2020/N) — Sweden — COVID-19: Loan guarantee scheme to airlines is void; and

—	order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs;

alternatively:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal;

—	refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; and

—	reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First, the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Second, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the appellant’s claim on free movement of services.

Third, the General Court made an error in law in rejecting the application of the balancing test.

Fourth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to state reasons.

Fifth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Appeal brought on 2 April 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2021 in Case T-259/20, Ryanair v Commission

(Case C-210/21 P)

(2021/C 297/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F. C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal;

—	declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2097 final of 31 March 2020 on State Aid SA.56765 (2020/N) — France — Covid-19 — Deferral of the payment of airline taxes in favour of public air transport undertakings is void; and

—	order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs;

alternatively:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal;

—	refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; and

—	reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First, the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Second, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the appellant’s claim on free movement of services.

Third, the General Court erred in law in its determination of the proportionality of the aid to the quantum of the damage under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

Fourth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to state reasons.

Fifth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 12 April 2021 — CR, AY, ML, BQ v Volkswagen Bank GmbH, Audi Bank

(Case C-232/21)

(2021/C 297/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CR, AY, ML, BQ

Defendants: Volkswagen Bank GmbH, Audi Bank

Questions referred

1.

Statutory presumption in accordance with Article 247(6), second paragraph, third sentence, and Article 247(12), first paragraph, third sentence, of the Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Introductory Law to the German Civil Code, ‘the EGBGB’) (a) Inasmuch as they state that contract terms which conflict with the requirements of Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) satisfy the requirements of Article 247(6), second paragraph, first and second sentences, of the EGBGB, and the requirements laid down in Article 247(12), first paragraph, second sentence, point 2(b), of the EGBGB, are Article 247(6), second paragraph, third sentence, and Article 247(12), first paragraph, third sentence, of the EGBGB incompatible with Article 10(2)(p) and Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC? If so: (b) Does it follow from EU law, in particular from Article 10(2)(p) and Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC, that inasmuch as they state that contract terms which conflict with the requirements of Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC satisfy the requirements of Article 247(6), second paragraph, first and second sentences, of the EGBGB, and the requirements laid down in Article 247(12), first paragraph, second sentence, point 2(b), of the EGBGB Article 247(6), second paragraph, third sentence, and Article 247(12), first paragraph, third sentence, of the EGBGB must be disapplied? Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1(a) and 1(b):

2.

Mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC (a) Is Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the amount of interest payable per day, which must be specified in the credit agreement, must be calculated from the contractual borrowing rate specified in the agreement? (b) Article 10(2)(r) of Directive 2008/48/EC: (aa) Is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that the information in the credit agreement concerning the compensation payable in the event of early repayment of the loan must be sufficiently precise to enable the consumer to calculate at least approximately the compensation payable? (should Question (aa) above be answered in the affirmative) (bb) Do Article 10(2)(r) and the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude national legislation pursuant to which, in the case of incomplete information within the meaning of Article 10(2)(r) of that directive, the period for withdrawal nevertheless commences on conclusion of the agreement and only the creditor’s right to compensation for early repayment of the credit is lost? If at least one of the above Questions 2(a) and 2(b) is answered in the affirmative: (c) Is Article 14(1), second sentence, point (b), of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the period of withdrawal does not begin until the information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been provided fully and correctly? If not: (d) What are the relevant criteria for determining whether the period of withdrawal is to begin in spite of the fact that that information is incomplete or incorrect? If the above Question 1(a) and/or one of Questions 2(a) and 2(b) is answered in the affirmative:

3.

Forfeiture of the right of withdrawal in accordance with Article 14(1), first sentence, of Directive 2008/48/EC: (a) Is the right of withdrawal in accordance with Article 14(1), first sentence, of Directive 2008/48/EC subject to forfeiture? If so: (b) Is forfeiture a time limit on the right of withdrawal which must be regulated by statute? If not: (c) Does forfeiture depend, from a subjective standpoint, on the consumer knowing that his or her right of withdrawal continued to exist or, at least, on his or her ignorance being ascribed to gross negligence? Does the same apply to agreements that have been terminated? If not: (d) Does the creditor’s facility to provide the borrower subsequently with the information required under Article 14(1), second sentence, point (b), of Directive 2008/48/EC and thus trigger the period of withdrawal preclude the application of the rules of forfeiture in good faith? Does the same apply to agreements that have been terminated? If not: (e) Is this compatible with the established principles of international law by which the German courts are bound under the Grundgesetz (Basic Law)? If so: (f) How are German legal practitioners to resolve a conflict between the binding prescripts of international law and the prescripts of the Court of Justice of the European Union?

4.

Assumption of an abuse of the consumer’s right of withdrawal under Article 14(1), first sentence, of Directive 2008/48/EC: (a) Is it possible to abuse the right of withdrawal under Article 14(1), first sentence, of Directive 2008/48/EC? If so: (b) Is the assumption of an abuse of the right of withdrawal a limitation of the right of withdrawal which must be regulated by statute? If not: (c) Does the assumption of an abuse of the right of withdrawal depend, from a subjective standpoint, on the consumer knowing that his or her right of withdrawal continued to exist or, at least, on his or her ignorance being ascribed to gross negligence? Does the same apply to agreements that have been terminated? If not: (d) Does the creditor’s facility to provide the consumer subsequently with the information required under Article 14(1), second sentence, point (b), of Directive 2008/48/EC and thus trigger the period of withdrawal preclude the assumption of an abuse of rights in the exercise of the right of withdrawal in good faith? Does the same apply to agreements that have been terminated? If not: (e) Is this compatible with the established principles of international law by which the German courts are bound under the Basic Law? If so: (f) How are German legal practitioners to resolve a conflict between the binding prescripts of international law and the prescripts of the Court of Justice of the European Union? Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 4 above:

5.

(a) Is it compatible with EU law if, under national law, in the case of a credit agreement linked to a contract of sale, following the effective exercise of the consumer’s right of withdrawal under Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (aa) a consumer’s claim against the creditor for repayment of the loan instalments paid does not arise until he or she has in turn returned the object purchased to the creditor or provided proof that he or she has dispatched it to the creditor? (bb) an action brought by the consumer for repayment of the loan instalments paid by the consumer, after having returned the object purchased, is to be dismissed as currently unfounded if the creditor has not delayed in accepting the object purchased? If not: (b) Does it follow from EU law that the national rules described in (a)(aa) and/or (a)(bb) must be disapplied? Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 5 above:

6.

Inasmuch as it also refers to orders for reference in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, is Paragraph 348a(2), point 1, of the Zivilprozessordnung (German Code of Civil Procedure) incompatible with the right conferred on the national courts to request a preliminary ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and must it therefore be disapplied to orders for reference?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 12 April 2021 — Défense Active des Amateurs d’Armes ASBL, NG, WL v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-234/21)

(2021/C 297/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Défense Active des Amateurs d’Armes ASBL, NG, WL

Defendant: Conseil des ministres

Question referred

Does Article 7(4a) of Directive 91/477/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with points 6 to 9 of category A of Part II of Annex 1 to that directive, infringe Articles 17(1), 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that it does not allow Member States to provide for transitional arrangements for firearms covered by category A.9 which were lawfully acquired and registered before 13 June 2017, whereas it allows them to provide for transitional arrangements for firearms covered by categories A.6 to A.8 which were lawfully acquired and registered before 13 June 2017?

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons ( OJ 1991 L 256, p. 51).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2021 — S.M.

(Case C-237/21)

(2021/C 297/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Person whose surrender is sought: S.M.

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München

Question referred

Do the principles governing the application of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU established by the Court in its judgment of 13 November 2018 in Raugevicius (C-247/17, EU:C:2018:898) require that a request from a third country under the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 seeking the extradition of an EU citizen for the purpose of enforcing a sentence is to be refused, even where the requested Member State is obliged by international law under that Convention to extradite the EU citizen, because it has defined the term ‘nationals’ within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention as meaning that it refers only to its own nationals, not to other EU citizens?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B.

(Case C-249/21)

(2021/C 297/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bottrop

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fuhrmann-2-GmbH

Defendant: B.

Question referred

Is the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the question whether a button or a similar function — the activation of which forms part of the ordering process of a distance contract to be concluded by electronic means within the meaning of the first subparagraph of that provision and which is not labelled with the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ — is labelled with a corresponding unambiguous formulation within the meaning of that provision, indicating that placing the order entails an obligation to pay the trader, is to be answered solely by reference to the labelling of the button or of the similar function?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH v L.B.

(Case C-257/21)

(2021/C 297/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: L.B.

Questions referred

1.

Does a collectively agreed rule implement Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if that collectively agreed rule provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is a collectively agreed rule that provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work compatible with Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if that rule is intended to compensate not only for the adverse effects on health caused by night work but also for the burden arising from the greater difficulty in planning for irregular night work?

---

(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).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH v R.G.

(Case C-258/21)

(2021/C 297/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: R.G.

Questions referred

1.

Does a collectively agreed rule implement Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if that collectively agreed rule provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is a collectively agreed rule that provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work compatible with Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if that rule is intended to compensate not only for the adverse effects on health caused by night work but also for the burden arising from the greater difficulty in planning for irregular night work?

---

(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).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 10 May 2021 — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Navitours SARL

(Case C-294/21)

(2021/C 297/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines

Respondent: Navitours SARL

Questions referred

Does (do) Article 2(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, (1) which provides that “the following shall be subject to value added tax: 1. the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such

and/or Article 9(2)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, which provides that “the place where transport services are supplied shall be the place where the transport takes place, having regard to the distances covered

apply and entail the levying of VAT in Luxembourg on the passenger transport services carried out by a service provider established in Luxembourg, where those services are performed within a condominium, as that condominium is defined in the Treaty between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany on the demarcation of the common border between those two States and the exchange of letters, signed in Luxembourg on 19 December 1984, as being a joint territory under the joint sovereignty of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany and in relation to which there is no agreement relating to the collection of VAT on supplies of transport services between those two States, such as provided for in Article 5(1) of the Treaty between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany on the demarcation of the common border between those two States of 19 December 1984, pursuant to which ‘the Contracting States shall settle matters concerning the law applicable in the joint territory under joint sovereignty by means of an additional agreement’?

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 May 2021 — VT v Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

(Case C-304/21)

(2021/C 297/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VT

Respondents: Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

Question referred

Must Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000, Article 3 TEU, Article 10 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the national legislation contained in Legislative Decree No 334/2000, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and in the secondary sources adopted by the Ministry of the Interior, which lays down an age limit of 30 years for participation in a selection procedure for posts of commissioner in the career bracket of State Police officers?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2021 — PP v Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

(Case C-315/21)

(2021/C 297/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PP

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

Questions referred

1.

Must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 (1) be interpreted as meaning that infringement thereof in itself renders unlawful a decision challenged under Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, irrespective of the specific consequences of that infringement for the content of the decision and the identification of the Member State responsible?

2.

Must Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, read in conjunction with Article 18(1)(a) or with Articles 18(2)(b), (c) and (d) and with Article 20(5) of the Dublin III Regulation, be interpreted as identifying different subjects of appeal, different complaints to be raised in judicial proceedings and different aspects of infringement of the obligations to provide information and conduct a personal interview under Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013? If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 be interpreted as meaning that the guarantees relating to information, provided for therein, are enjoyed only in the scenario set out in Article 18(1)(a) and not also in the take back procedure, or must they be interpreted as meaning that in that procedure the obligations to provide information are enjoyed at least in relation to the cessation of responsibilities referred to in Article 19 or the systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants which result in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union referred to in Article 3(2)?

3.

Must Article 3(2) be interpreted as meaning that ‘systemic flaws in the asylum procedure’ includes any consequences of final decisions rejecting an application for international protection already adopted by the court of the Member State effecting the take back, where the court seised pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 considers that there is a real risk that the applicant could suffer inhuman and degrading treatment if he or she is returned to his or her country of origin by the Member State, also having regard to the presumed existence of a general armed conflict within the meaning of Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011? (2)

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

(2)  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).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement (Luxembourg) lodged on 21 May 2021 — G-Finance SARL, DV v Luxembourg Business Registers

(Case C-317/21)

(2021/C 297/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: G-Finance SARL, DV

Defendant: Luxembourg Business Registers

Questions referred

Are the provisions of Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU, (1) and in particular Article 1(15)(c) thereof, amending Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, as amended by the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2018/843, in so far as they grant a right of access to information on the beneficial owners of companies and other legal entities to ‘any member of the general public’,

invalid because they:

(a)	infringe the principle of proportionality, as set out, in particular, in Article 5(4) TEU; and/or

(b)	infringe Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (freedom to conduct a business); and/or

(c)	infringe Articles 20 (equality before the law) and 21 (non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and/or

(d)	infringe the general principle of European law of protection of business secrecy?

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 156, p. 43.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 21 May 2021 — SIA STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS IN RIGA v Latvijas Zinātnes padome

(Case C-318/21)

(2021/C 297/30)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS IN RIGA

Defendant: Latvijas Zinātnes padome

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 2(83) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that an entity (such as universities or research institutes, technology transfer agencies, innovation intermediaries, research-oriented physical or virtual collaborative entities) whose operating objectives include independently conducting fundamental research, industrial research or experimental development or widely disseminating the results of such activities by way of teaching, publication or knowledge transfer, but whose own funding consists mainly of revenue from economic activities, can be considered a research and knowledge-dissemination organisation?

2.

In determining whether the entity complies with the requirement in Article 2(83) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that the primary goal of the entity’s activities must be to independently conduct fundamental research, industrial research or experimental development or to widely disseminate the results of such activities by way of teaching, publication or knowledge transfer, is it justified to apply the requirement concerning the proportion of funding (revenue and costs) derived from economic and non-economic activities?

3.

If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, in determining whether the entity’s primary goal is to independently conduct fundamental research, industrial research or experimental development or to widely disseminate the results of such activities by way of teaching, publication or knowledge transfer, what percentages of funding must be obtained from economic and from non-economic activities?

4.

Must the rule in Article 2(83) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which establishes that undertakings that can exert a decisive influence upon the entity submitting the project proposal, in the quality of, for example, shareholders or members, may not enjoy preferential access to the results generated by that entity, be interpreted as meaning that the members or shareholders of the said entity may be either natural or legal persons with a profit motive (including through the provision of educational services in return for payment) or not-for-profit entities (such as an association or foundation)?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trieste (Italy) lodged on 26 May 2021 — GE v Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

(Case C-328/21)

(2021/C 297/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Trieste

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: GE

Respondent: Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) be interpreted: — as meaning that a failure to provide the information leaflet required under Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 to a person who meets the conditions described in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 in itself renders the transfer decision irremediably invalid (and potentially also establishes the responsibility of the Member State to which the person has submitted the new application to take a decision on the application for international protection); — or as meaning that it is for the appellant to prove in court that the procedure would have had a different outcome if the leaflet had been provided to him or her?

2.

Must Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 be interpreted: — as meaning that a failure to provide the information leaflet required under Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 to a person who meets the conditions described in Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 in itself renders the transfer decision irremediably invalid (and potentially also results in the need to provide a possibility to submit a new application for international protection); — or as meaning that it is for the appellant to prove in court that the procedure would have had a different outcome if the leaflet had been provided to him or her?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA

(Case T-137/16 RENV) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of sums paid)

(2021/C 297/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of the REA, acting under powers delegated by the European Commission, to terminate the Grant Agreement for the Cossar project (No 252908) and requiring the applicant to repay the sums of EUR 36 508,37, EUR 58 031,38 and EUR 6 286,68, as well as to pay damages in the amount of EUR 5 803,14 and, second, reimbursement by the REA of the corresponding sums plus interest calculated as from the day of payment until the day of reimbursement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Uniwersytet Wrocławski to pay the costs relating, first, to the proceedings brought before the General Court and, second, to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Puma and Others v Commission

(Case T-781/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 - Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty - Resumption of the proceeding which preceded the regulations declared invalid - Market economy treatment (MET) - Individual treatment (IT) - Desk analysis - Absence of a verification visit or a request for additional information - Non-reimbursement of anti-dumping duties - Legal basis - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Non-retroactivity - Proportionality - Misuse of powers - Non-discrimination - Previous decision-making practice)

(2021/C 297/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) and the eight other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of (i) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 225, p. 52); (ii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 245, p. 16); and (iii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 of 28 September 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 262, p. 4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Puma SE and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Calhau Correia de Paiva v Commission

(Case T-202/17) (1)

(Language regime - Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of competition law, corporate finance, financial economics, industrial economics and macroeconomics (AD 7) - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Plea of illegality - Limitation of the choice of the second language of the competition to English, French or German - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service)

(2021/C 297/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ana Calhau Correia de Paiva (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Villante, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon, I. Melo Sampaio and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, firstly, of the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/293/14 — Administrators (AD 7) in the fields of competition law, corporate finance, financial economics, industrial economics and macroeconomics of 9 November 2015 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list drawn up at the end of the selection procedure, secondly, of the decision of 23 June 2016 reviewing that first decision, thirdly, of the decision of 22 December 2016 rejecting the complaint filed by the applicant against the first decision and, fourthly, of the reserve list drawn up at the end of the selection procedure referred to above in so far as that reserve list concerns the field of competition law.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/293/14 of 23 June 2016, transmitted by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), rejecting the request for review made by Ms Ana Calhau Correia de Paiva following her exclusion from the reserve list of the competition by a decision of 9 November 2015;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders Ms Calhau Correia de Paiva to bear one third of her own costs;

4.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Calhau Correia de Paiva.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Roland v Commission

(Case T-132/18) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 - Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty - Resumption of the proceeding which preceded the regulations declared invalid - Market economy treatment (MET) - Individual treatment (IT) - Desk analysis - Absence of a verification visit or a request for additional information - Non-reimbursement of anti-dumping duties - Legal basis - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Non-retroactivity - Proportionality - Non-discrimination - Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Previous decision-making practice - Competence of national authorities and courts)

(2021/C 297/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: S. De Knop, A. Willems and B. Natens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Roland SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Dansk Erhverv v Commission

(Case T-47/19) (1)

(State aid - Sale of canned beverages in border shops in Germany to foreign residents - Exemption from the deposit on condition that the beverages purchased are consumed outside Germany - Complaint - Decision by the Commission not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Admissibility - Conditions for initiating a formal investigation procedure - Error of law - Serious difficulties - Concept of ‘State aid’ - State resources - Non-imposition of a fine)

(2021/C 297/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dansk Erhverv (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: T. Mygind and H. Peytz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Danmarks Naturfredningsforening (Copenhagen) (represented by: T. Mygind and H. Peytz, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), Interessengemeinschaft der Grenzhändler (IGG) (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Bauer and F. von Hammerstein, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 6315 final of 4 October 2018 concerning State Aid SA.44865 (2016/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid to German beverage border shops.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Commission Decision C(2018) 6315 final of 4 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.44865 (2016/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid to German beverage border shops;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dansk Erhverv and Danmarks Naturfredningsforening;

3.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Interessengemeinschaft der Grenzhändler (IGG) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v ECHA

(Case T-177/19) (1)

(REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Inclusion of phenanthrene on that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Weight of evidence determination - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard)

(2021/C 297/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical BVBA (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: A. Kołtunowska and A. Bartl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, C. Buchanan and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Petroleum Refiners Association (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and T. Delille, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, E. Leclerc, T. Stehelin and W. Zemamta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA Decision ED/88/2018 of 19 December 2018, in so far as it places phenanthrene on the list of substances identified as being of very high concern provided for in Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical BVBA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

3.	Orders the French Republic and the European Petroleum Refiners Association to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — HIM v Commission

(Case T-235/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy Support Programme - Audit report - Debit notes issued by the Commission - OLAF investigation - Action for annulment - Counterclaim - Full repayment of grants - Damages)

(2021/C 297/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Health Information Management (HIM) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Zeegers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

On the one hand, a principal claim based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that Debit Notes No 3241901815 and No 3241901886 of 4 February 2019 requesting repayment of the sums of EUR 94 445 and EUR 121 517, respectively, under Grant Agreements No 225023, relating to the project ‘ElDeRly friEndly Alarm handling and monitorING (Dreaming)’, and No 250449, relating to the project ‘Health monitoring and sOcial integration environMEnt for Supporting WidE ExTension of independent life at HOME (HOME SWEET HOME)’, concluded in the context of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy Support Programme provided for by the framework programme established by Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013), were issued by the Commission in breach of its contractual obligations and that, therefore, those sums are not due, and, in so far as necessary, a claim based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of those debit notes; and, on the other, a counterclaim by the Commission seeking an order that HIM repay in full the grants received under the grant agreements referred to above and pay the sum of EUR 56 876.50 by way of damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the main action;

2.

Declares that the breaches of Grant Agreements No 225023, relating to the implementation of the project entitled ‘ElDeRly friEndly Alarm handling and monitorING (Dreaming)’, and No 250449, relating to the implementation of the project entitled ‘Health monitoring and sOcial integration environMEnt for Supporting WidE ExTension of independent life at HOME (HOME SWEET HOME)’, committed by Health Information Management (HIM) constitute irregularities within the meaning of Article II.1 of the general conditions annexed to those agreements;

3.	Orders HIM to repay the sum of EUR 512 799 to the European Commission;

4.	Dismisses the Commission’s counterclaim as to the remainder;

5.	Orders HIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-302/19) (1)

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

(2021/C 297/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint-Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, R. Kiddell, Solicitors, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič, A. Vitro and T. Haas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

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

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-303/19) (1)

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

(2021/C 297/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, R. Kiddell, Solicitors, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič, A. Vitro and T. Haas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

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

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — DI v ECB

(Case T-514/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Reimbursement of medical expenses and education expenses - Forgery - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal - Criminal proceedings - No further action taken - Acquittal - Competence of the Executive Board - Legal certainty - Time-barred disciplinary proceedings - Adage according to which ‘disciplinary proceedings arising out of a criminal offence must await the outcome of the criminal trial’ - Presumption of innocence - Impartiality of the Disciplinary Committee - Error of law - Probative value of the evidence - Reasonable time - Proportionality of the penalty - Intensity of the judicial review - Liability)

(2021/C 297/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Malfrère and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decision of 7 May 2019 dismissing the applicant without notice on disciplinary grounds and of its decision of 25 June 2019 refusing to reopen the disciplinary proceedings, second, an order that the applicant be reinstated as from 11 May 2019 and, third, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions and by reason of the length of the disciplinary proceedings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders DI to bear his own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the European Central Bank (ECB), which shall bear the rest of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Hill Mansilla v Commission

(Case T-575/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2018 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Comparative examination of the merits - Assessment criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination)

(2021/C 297/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Élise Hill Mansilla (Rodemack, France) (represented by: R. Mbonyumutwa, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2018 not to include the applicant’s name in the final list of promoted officials in the 2018 promotion exercise and, second, compensation for the non-material and material damages allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ms Élise Hill Mansilla to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Borborudi v Council

(Case T-580/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Error of assessment - Article 266 TFEU)

(2021/C 297/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855 of 27 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2019 L 140, p. 1) in so far as it retains the name of the applicant on the list set out in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855 of the Council of the European Union of 27 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it concerns Mr Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi;

2.	Orders the Council to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Iniciativa ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ v Commission

(Case T-611/19) (1)

(Institutional law - European citizens’ initiative - ‘EU law, minority rights and democratisation of Spanish institutions’ - New EU framework to strengthen the rule of law - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - No invitation to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union - Article 4(2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 296 TFEU)

(2021/C 297/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Citizens’ committee of the initiative ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ (represented by: G. Boye, I. Elbal Sánchez, E. Valcuende Sillero and I. González Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1182 of 3 July 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘EU law, minority rights and democratisation of Spanish institutions’ (OJ 2019 L 185, p. 46).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the citizens’ committee of the initiative ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-698/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Update of the correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment - Retroactive effect - Legal certainty - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2021/C 297/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and the 8 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision drawing up the applicants’ salary slip for December 2018 to the extent that it applied, for the first time, new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect from 1 February 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders FJ and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — FT and Others v Commission

(Case T-699/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Commission staff posted to a third country - Update of the correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment - Retroactive effect - Legal certainty - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2021/C 297/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FT and the 24 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision drawing up the applicants’ salary slip for December 2018 to the extent that it applied, for the first time, new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect from 1 February 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders FT and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Lianopoulou v Commission

(Case T-880/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Decision on invalidity - Opinion of the invalidity committee - Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Duty to state reasons)

(2021/C 297/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Anastasia Lianopoulou (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Quraishi, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 27 February 2019 terminating the service of the applicant on 28 February 2019 on account of the finding of her invalidity and granting her an invalidity allowance as from 1 March 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 27 February 2019 terminating the service of Ms Anastasia Lianopoulou on 28 February 2019 on account of the finding of her invalidity and granting her an invalidity allowance as from 1 March 2019;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO — (SIENNA SELECTION)

(Case T-130/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SIENNA SELECTION - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Name of a colour - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 297/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2019 (Case R 1675/2019 5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SIENNA SELECTION as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 December 2019 (Case R 1675/2019-5);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Philip Morris Products SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)

(Case T-266/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE - Earlier EU word mark CFA and earlier EU figurative mark CFA CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYST - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relevant public - Level of attention)

(2021/C 297/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Chartered Controller Institute SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and T. Barber Giner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Villani and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: G. Engels and W. May, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between CFA Institute and Global Chartered Controller Institute.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Global Chartered Controller Institute SL, with the exception of the costs incurred by the latter before the Board of Appeal, which are reserved;

3.	Orders CFA Institute to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 –Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORTS)

(Case T-396/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark RIVIERA AIRPORTS - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 297/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, France) (represented by: Y. Bizollon, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 (Case R 2172/2019 4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Riviera-Airport and Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 –Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORT)

(Case T-398/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark RIVIERA AIRPORT - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 297/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, France) (represented by: Y. Bizollon, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2020 (Case R 2174/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Riviera-Airport and Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — KZ v Commission

(Case T-453/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2019 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Plea of illegality - Leave on personal grounds - Ineligibility for promotion)

(2021/C 297/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KZ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission, published in Administrative Notices No 32-2019 of 14 November 2019, not to include the applicant’s name on the list of officials promoted in the 2019 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders KZ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Ryanair v Commission (Condor; Covid-19)

(Case T-665/20) (1)

(State aid - German air transport market - Public loan guaranteed by Germany to Condor Flugdienst in the context of the COVID 19 pandemic - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Article 107(2)(b) TFEU - Assessment of damages - Causal link - Obligation to state reasons - Maintenance of the effects of the decision)

(2021/C 297/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, F. Tomat and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, R. Kanitz and P.L. Krüger, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents), Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Kelsterbach, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel and S. Blazek, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 2795 final of 26 April 2020 on State aid SA.56867 (2020/N, ex 2020/PN) — Germany — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID 19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 2795 final of 26 April 2020 on State aid SA.56867 (2020/N, ex 2020/PN) — Germany — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH;

2.

Suspends the effects of the annulment of that decision pending the adoption of a new decision by the Commission under Article 108 TFEU. Those effects are to be preserved for a period not exceeding two months from the date of delivery of this judgment if the Commission decides to adopt such a new decision under Article 108(3) TFEU, and for a reasonable further period if the Commission decides to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU;

3.	Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, and to pay those incurred by Ryanair DAC;

4.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and Condor Flugdienst to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

Order of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe)

(Case T-365/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting in wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 297/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Linz am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 (Case R 1706/2019-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting in wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	Birkenstock Sales GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

Action brought on 15 April 2021 — SMA Mineral v Commission

(Case T-215/21)

(2021/C 297/55)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: SMA Mineral (Filipstad, Sweden) (represented by: E. Larsson)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul Commission Decision (EU) 2021/355 of 25 February 2021, as regards Article 1(2);

—	determine that the installation proposed by Sweden in point 12 (ID SE000000000000419 in the NIMs lists) should be included for free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 16(7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/331 is not applicable and the statement of reasons for the contested decision therefore has no legal basis — The Commission’s claim of double counting of emissions is erroneous. No double counting is taking place nor has it previously taken place for the SMA Sandarne installation. The Commission’s decision not to include the SMA Sandarne installation among installations which receive free allocation of emission allowances under the product benchmark for lime is therefore erroneous and thus has no legal basis.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is incompatible with EU legislation, in particular with Regulation (EU) 2019/331 and Directive 2003/87/EC — The Commission’s claim of double counting of emissions is erroneous. The decision to refuse, pursuant to Article 16(7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/331, the allocation of free emission allowances to the SMA Sandarne installation according to the product benchmark for lime is therefore erroneous.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately ensure observance of the applicant’s fundamental rights and breaches the principle of proportionality — The Commission did not take into account, in the contested decision, the economic significance of the free allocation of emission allowances for the applicant, which also affects employment in the applicant’s business and economic development in the long term, but even the applicant’s competitiveness compared to other market players providing the equivalent product. The Commission did not sufficiently take into account the principle of proportionality, which requires the adoption of transitional provisions when a certain player is burdened by higher costs than other players on the same market.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision leads to a distortion of competition — Producers of burnt lime made from the raw material limestone receive a free allocation of emission rights according to the product benchmark for lime. The kraft pulp mill’s purchase of burnt lime from the SMA Sandarne installation performs the same function for the buyer as purchased burnt lime based on the raw material virgin stone. Granting free allocation of emission rights to one lime product but not to the other means that competition between two products that perform the same function in the kraft pulp mill will not take place on equal terms.

Action brought on 19 May 2021 — Arctic Paper Grycksbo v Commission

(Case T-269/21)

(2021/C 297/56)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Arctic Paper Grycksbo AB (Grycksbo, Sweden) (represented by: A. Bryngelsson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the General Court should:

—

Annul Article 1(1) of and Annex I to Commission Decision (EU) 2021/355 of 25 February 2021 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in so far as they refer to the installation with identifier SE000000000000468, and

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment — The applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment of the facts in its conclusion that Arctic Paper’s installation was ‘using exclusively biomass’. Arctic Paper had fossil emissions during the period deemed relevant by the Commission. The Commission also accepted the inclusion of a number of installations whose annual emissions were at comparable levels.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment — The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principle of equal treatment. First, installations in a situation similar to the applicant’s installation had similar levels of emissions, but were not excluded. Second, the exclusion of the applicant leads to a distortion of competition, inter alia because less environmentally friendly competitors of the applicant gain a financial advantage over the applicant. There are no objective reasons for a difference in treatment.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements — The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements. First, the Commission breached its duty of care by disregarding the material and reliable data it had received from the Naturvårdsverket (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) which, had it been taken into account, ought to have led to a different outcome of the decision. Second, the Commission failed to have regard to the applicant’s right to be heard. The contested decision is an individual measure adversely affecting the applicant. If, after becoming aware that companies in general and the applicant specifically rounded their emissions data, the Commission had heard the applicant, the applicant could have explained that the data it had submitted contained such roundings. Third, the obligation to state reasons has been breached. It is impossible to infer from the decision the reasons why the applicant was excluded, and the decision is entirely lacking in reasoning concerning inter alia equal treatment.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations — The applicant claims that the EU’s legislation on emissions trading and the Commission’s previous approval decisions encouraged it to reduce its fossil emissions in favour of burning biomass. The applicant could not foresee that the installation would no longer be covered by the emissions trading system (ETS) and would therefore lose its permission to use fossil fuels and miss out on the financially valuable free allocation of emission allowances because the installation had reduced its use of fossil fuels. There is no overriding public interest justifying infringement of the principle.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Directive 2003/87/EC — The applicant claims that Directive 2003/87/EC has been infringed by the Commission’s misinterpretation of the so-called biomass exception (point 1 of Annex I). First, in the Commission’s assessment as to whether the applicant was using biomass exclusively, it used data dating back several years instead of newer or prospective data. Second, the Commission’s interpretation of the biomass exception manifestly runs counter to both the other provisions of the directive, in particular Article 10a, and the aim of the directive and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. The aim of the directive in general and of the rules on the free allocation of emission allowances in particular is to create a financial incentive to reduce the use of fossil fuels, including through the increased use of biomass. The Commission’s interpretation of the biomass exception has precisely the opposite effect.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging inapplicability under Article 277 TFEU of the biomass exception in so far as it relates to the applicant — In the event that the Court does not consider that the biomass exception can be interpreted as set out in the fifth plea in law, the applicant claims that point 1 of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC (the biomass exception), in accordance with Article 277 TFEU, should not be applied in the present case. This is because that provision — were the Commission’s interpretation of it to be accepted — runs counter to primary law, including the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. That provision disadvantages those who have gone the furthest in the transition to fossil-free emissions in favour of the others. It therefore incentivises those who have done the most to start using fossil fuels again, and encourages those who still use fossil fuels not to reduce their emissions beyond a certain level.

Action brought on 27 May 2021 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (SOILXPLORER)

(Case T-300/21)

(2021/C 297/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CNH Industrial NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SOILXPLORER — Application for registration No 18 217 454

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 in Case R 386/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be published for opposition purposes in respect of all the goods applied for, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by attributing an incorrect meaning to the trade mark applied for and by failing to consider the mark as filed;

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the descriptive character of the mark;

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the distinctive character of the mark.

Action brought on 27 May 2021 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (CROPXPLORER)

(Case T-301/21)

(2021/C 297/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CNH Industrial NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CROPXPLORER — Application for registration No 18 217 458

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 in Case R 387/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be published for opposition purposes in respect of all the goods applied for, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by attributing an incorrect meaning to the trade mark applied for and by failing to consider the mark as filed;

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the descriptive character of the mark;

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the distinctive character of the mark.

Action brought on 8 June 2021 — KF v BEI

(Case T-318/21)

(2021/C 297/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the defendant’s decision of 13 October 2020;

—	annul the defendant’s decision of 9 March 2021 rejecting the applicant’s request for an administrative review of the defendant’s decision of 13 October 2020;

—	grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 8(1), Article 46(1) and Article 51(1) of the defendant’s Pension Scheme Regulations and a manifest error of appreciation of the legal concept of invalidity.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and a violation of the duty of care.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of impartiality.

5.	The applicant also considers that the illegalities set out in the appeal amount to faults committed by the defendant. The applicant therefore seeks compensation for the moral damage arising from the contested decision.

Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission

(Case T-321/21)

(2021/C 297/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Zaščiurinskaitė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	declare the application admissible;

—

order the European Commission to pay AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai compensation of EUR 850 565,76, corresponding default interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, plus 3.5 percentage points, on the amount of EUR 7 804 350 for the period from 5 January 2018 until 29 January 2021;

—

order the European Commission to pay AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai default interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, plus 3.5 percentage points, on the amount of EUR 850 565,76 for the period from 30 January 2021 until the date of actual payment of the principal amount;

—	pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the European Commission decisions of 26 April 2021 and 16 May 2021;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of 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 violation of first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU: the European Commission had erred in fulfilling its absolute and unconditional obligation to pay default interest after the reduction of a fine imposed by the Commission, which was provisionally paid by the applicant.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that breach of the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU rendered the European Union non-contractually liable pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. The applicant alleges that a person must be able to seek compensation not only for actual loss but also for loss of profit and interest.

4.

Forth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights since judicial protection under Article 263 TFEU is not effective if the undertaking concerned is unable to obtain interest on an unduly paid fine after a Court reduces a fine for infringement of European Union competition rules.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 266, 340 TFEU, Articles 41(3), 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, by the decision of 26 April 2021 (1) and 16 May 2021 (2) by which the Commission refused to pay default interest.

---

(1)  Email from the Commission to the applicant of 26 April 2021, subject: RE: Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail

(2)  Email from the Commission to the applicant of 16 May 2021, subject: RE: Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail, confirming position expressed in the email of 26 April 2021.

Action brought on 10 June 2021 — Harley-Davidson Europe and Neovia Logistics Services International v Commission

(Case T-324/21)

(2021/C 297/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Harley-Davidson Europe Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom), Neovia Logistics Services International (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: O. van Baelen and G. Lebrun, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the Contested Decision (1) in its entirety;

—	order that the Commission pay its own costs and the applicants’ costs in connection with these proceedings;

—	draw all useful consequences from the judgment; and

—	order measures of organisation or enquiry as deemed appropriate by the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements. The Contested Decision is insufficiently reasoned and the Commission failed to follow properly the advisory committee procedure.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its revocation power under Article 34(11) of Regulation (EU) No. 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, because it has based the contested decision on an incorrect interpretation of Article 33 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) (‘UCCDA’).

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 33 UCCDA is invalid, because (i) if the Commission has correctly interpreted Article 33 UCCDA that provision is invalid for breach of the requirements of Article 290 TFEU and (ii) it is invalid for such breach in any event.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of general principles of EU law and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its powers in issuing the Contested Decision and has abused its power to revoke Binding Origin Information decisions, as an inevitable consequence of the pleas above and as a result of the Commission having abused its revocation power to political ends, undermining its proper purpose: to ensure correct and uniform application by Member States of origin rules.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/563 of 31 March 2021 on the validity of certain decisions relating to binding origin information (OJ 2021, L 119, p. 117).

(2)  OJ 2013, L 269, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2015, L 343, p. 1.

Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Vitalsss plus)

(Case T-325/21)

(2021/C 297/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska and R. Skubisz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Vitalsss plus — Application for registration No 17 969 083

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 April 2021 in Cases R 503/2020-1 and R 647/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, by the intervener.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in connection with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission

(Case T-326/21)

(2021/C 297/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd (Qingyuan, China) and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd (Yuan Tan Town, China) (represented by: M. Maresca, C. Malinconico, D. Guardamagna, M. Guardamagna, D. Maresca, A. Cerruti, A. Malinconico and G. Falla, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul in part Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/546 of 29 March 2021, notified to the applicants on 30 March 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China and, in the alternative, annul the basic regulation (Regulation 1036/2016); order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage caused by the application of those regulations and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, relating to the obligation to ascertain specifically that the requirements for dumping have been met, infringement of the principles of due process and audi alteram partem, infringement of essential procedural requirements, misuse of powers due to the imprecise nature of the objections and the failure genuinely to verify the information provided in a spirit of cooperation. — The applicants submit in this regard that the contested regulation is vitiated by unlawfulness in so far as the Commission failed to ascertain specifically the conditions obtaining on the markets considered and the applicants were not given the opportunity substantively to exercise their rights of defence. In short, Haomei and King Metal were found liable for dumping, and countervailing duties were accordingly imposed on them, not because of their own conduct in respect of exports from China, but rather due to a complex favourable assessment of the Chinese economy, and therefore for totally imprecise reasons. Satisfied with this, the Commission failed to carry out any specific assessment of the documents provided by the applicant undertakings.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the basic regulation relating to the determination of dumping margins, incorrect identification of the ‘normal’ price of the goods under investigation and application of provisional duties not on account of the liability of the exporters but in reaction to the overall structure of the Chinese economy. — The applicants allege unlawfulness of the regulation on account of the fact that the Commission conducted an investigation that was incomplete and in any event led to an uncertain outcome; that outcome was also vitiated by the unlawfulness deriving from the regulation on the registration of goods, which is already the subject of an action before the Court, in so far as the Commission included goods codes (7610 90 90) in the investigation which, on its own admission, should not have been included as they relate to goods that are different to those subject to investigation. Such an error (having permitted the inclusion of different goods) eliminates both the dumping condition (in so far as the very low relative price inevitably and artificially reduces the average price) and the injury to the EU industry, as the quantities involved are significant in relation to the total volume of the goods, such as to render irrelevant the impact of the remaining part of the product imported into the European Union. — In the second place, the applicants submit that the absence of a specific determination of their situation is incompatible with the Treaty (and with the rules cited) in so far as it establishes a regime of strict or vicarious liability, which runs counter to the fundamental principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations by reason of market price and cost structure, manifestly of the market, produced by the applicants on several occasions to — and completely ignored by — the Commission (as the positions expressed on the market economy by the Chinese Government were similarly ignored). This has led to manifest unlawfulness, both as regards the substance (relating to the concepts of normal value, significant distortion, access to credit, tax regime, insolvency regime, representative countries and choice of those countries) and as regards procedure, set out at length in the present plea, resulting in a clear and detrimental discriminatory effect.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an absence of damage, distortion of the facts relating to market shares and infringement of the principle of proportionality. — By the third plea in law, the applicants submit that the contested regulation is unlawful because the Commission has been unable to establish the existence of injury or a causal link between the latter and the dumping. — In addition, there is an absence of even a minimum of technical analysis and proper assessment of the proportionality of the dumping duty in relation to the damage to the industry established by the undercutting or underselling, required by the case-law as necessary for a finding of injury. On the contrary, in the applicants’ case, the absence of undercutting and underselling has been established (by way of the various documents produced in the body of the plea) from the Ex Works prices of Haomei and King Metal, which are comparable to European prices (DOC.3, Bauxite report). — In addition, the applicants submit that the European Union has no interest whatsoever in the duty being imposed, the sole interest being that of the complainants, which the Commission merely ‘adopted’ as its own reasoning, extending it, without analysis, to the entire European Union. In that connection, the applicants argue that the Commission, once again, completely failed to take into account the information produced by the applicants in the course of the procedure, which was also not examined during the adversarial proceedings (oral or written) or in the regulation.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘GATT’) and, in the alternative, unlawfulness of the basic regulation if it is not interpreted in accordance with international agreements. — The applicants submit in this regard that Regulation 2020/1428, adopted by the Commission on the legal basis of Article 207 TFEU, departs from the concepts provided for by the relevant international law. They add that, if this should not be the case, that is, in other words, if no unlawfulness vitiates Regulation 2020/1428 directly, then the basic regulation itself is unlawful.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the European Convention of Human Rights in relation to the procedure imposing a sanction equivalent to a penalty under criminal law by reason of the effects produced on the exporting undertakings. For the applicant undertakings, the application of the duties in question constitutes an obstacle to the pursuit of their activities, causing irreparable harm comparable to that of a penalty under criminal law.

Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Scania CV v EUIPO (V8)

(Case T-327/21)

(2021/C 297/64)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Scania CV AB (Södertälje, Sweden) (represented by: C. Langenius, P. Sundin and S. Falkner)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU figurative mark V8 — Application for registration No 18 120 085

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 1868/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	in accordance with Article 72 EUTMR, annul the contested decision and, amending EUIPO’s decision; grant Scania’s application for registration of the figurative mark for all the goods and services for which EUIPO refused registration;

—	in accordance with Article 72 EUTMR, annul the contested decision and refer the matter back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal for a fresh decision;

—	in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, 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)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 10 June 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — V. Fraas (FRAAS)

(Case T-329/21)

(2021/C 297/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts/Wüstenselbitz, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FRAAS’ — EU trade mark No 5 769 351

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2021 in Case R 2714/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and order that the contested mark also be cancelled for the following goods:

Class 18: Handbags;

Class 25: Clothing, headgear, scarves, headscarves and shawls, except goods of fur and imitation fur; gloves, caps, textile accessories for clothing and headgear (included in Class 25);

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

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