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

(2023/C 179/01)

Last publication

OJ C 173, 15.5.2023

Past publications

OJ C 164, 8.5.2023

OJ C 155, 2.5.2023

OJ C 134, 17.4.2023

OJ C 127, 11.4.2023

OJ C 121, 3.4.2023

OJ C 112, 27.3.2023

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium v Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums

(Case C-34/21, (1) Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 88(1) and (2) - Processing of data in the employment context - Regional school system - Teaching by videoconference as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic - Implementation without the express consent of the teachers)

(2023/C 179/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium

Defendant: Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v S.S., N.Z., S.S

(Case C-338/21, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Transfer time limit — Trafficking in human beings))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 27 - Appeal against a transfer decision taken in respect of an asylum seeker - Article 29 - Suspension of implementation of the transfer decision - Transfer time limit - Interruption of the transfer time limit - Directive 2004/81/EC - Residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities - Article 6 - Reflection period - Prohibition on enforcing an expulsion order - Remedies)

(2023/C 179/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: S.S., N.Z., S.S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29(1) and (2) of 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, read in conjunction with Article 27(3) of that regulation,

must be interpreted as:

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.N., S.S., J.Y.

(Case C-556/21, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Suspension of the transfer time limit on appeal))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 27 - Appeal against a decision to transfer an asylum seeker - Article 29 - Transfer time limit - Suspension of that time limit on appeal - Interim measure requested by the authorities)

(2023/C 179/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: E.N., S.S., J.Y.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29(1) and (2) of 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, read in conjunction with Article 27(3) of that regulation,

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a national court or tribunal hearing an appeal at second instance against a judgment annulling a transfer decision to adopt, on the application of the competent authorities, an interim measure enabling those authorities to refrain from taking a fresh decision pending the outcome of that appeal and having the object or effect of suspending the running of the transfer time limit until that outcome, provided that such a measure may be adopted only where the implementation of the transfer decision has been suspended pursuant to Article 27(3) or (4) of that regulation during the examination of the appeal at first instance.

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina O. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-612/21, (1) Gmina O.)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) and (c) - Supply of goods and services for consideration - Article 9(1) - Meanings of ‘taxable person’ and ‘economic activity’ - Municipality which organises the installation of renewable energy on its territory for its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish to be equipped with renewable energy systems - Their contribution amounting to 25 % of the subsidisable costs, without being able to exceed a maximum value agreed between the municipality and the interested property owner - Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 75 % of the subsidisable costs - Article 13(1) - Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities)

(2023/C 179/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina O.

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1), Article 9(1) and Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a municipality supplies and installs, through an undertaking, renewable energy systems for its residents who own their property and who have expressed their wish to be equipped with renewable energy systems, where such an activity is not intended to obtain income on a continuing basis and gives rise, on the part of those residents, solely to a payment covering at most one quarter of the costs incurred, the balance being financed by public funds, does not constitute a supply of goods and services subject to value added tax.

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v Gmina L.

(Case C-616/21, (1) Gmina L.)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Supply of services for consideration - Article 9(1) - Meanings of ‘taxable person’ and ‘economic activity’ - Municipality which arranges for asbestos removal for the benefit of its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish for that - Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 40 % to 100 % of the costs - Article 13(1) - Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities)

(2023/C 179/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Defendant: Gmina L.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1), Article 9(1) and Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that where a municipality has arranged by means of an undertaking to carry out transactions involving asbestos removal and collection of asbestos products and waste, for the benefit of its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed interest in that regard, where such an activity is not intended to obtain income on a continuing basis and does not give rise, on the part of those residents, to any payment, since those transactions are financed by public funds, does not constitute a supply of services subject to value added tax.

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — AR and Others v PK and Others

(Case C-618/21, (1) AR and Others (Direct action against the insurer))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3 - Compulsory insurance of vehicles - Article 18 - Direct right of action - Scope - Determination of the amount of compensation - Hypothetical costs - Possibility of making the payment of compensation subject to certain conditions - Sale of the vehicle)

(2023/C 179/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AR, BF, ZN, NK Sp. z o.o. s.k., KP, RD Sp. z o.o.

Defendants: PK S.A., CR, SI S.A., MB S.A., PK S.A., SI S.A., EZ S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 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 3 of that directive,

must be interpreted as

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by M. Ya. M.

(Case C-651/21, (1) M. Ya. M. (Co-heir’s waiver of succession))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Measures relating to the law on succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 13 - Declaration concerning the waiver of a succession made by an heir before the court of the Member State of his or her habitual residence - Subsequent registration of that declaration, at the request of another heir, in the register of another Member State)

(2023/C 179/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. Ya. M.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession,

must be interpreted as not precluding, after an heir has already had registered with a court of the Member State in which he or she is habitually resident his or her declaration of acceptance or of waiver of the succession of a deceased person whose habitual residence was, at the time of his or her death, in another Member State, another heir from applying for a subsequent registration of that declaration with the court of the latter Member State having jurisdiction.

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Green Network SpA v SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)

(Case C-5/22, (1) Green Network (Order for repayment of costs))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 37 - Annex I - Duties and powers of the national regulatory authority - Consumer protection - Administrative management costs - Power of the national regulatory authority to order the repayment of sums paid by final customers pursuant to contractual terms that have been penalised by that authority)

(2023/C 179/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Green Network SpA

Defendants: SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 37(1)(i) and (n) and Article 37(4)(d) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, and Annex I to Directive 2009/72,

must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from conferring on a national regulatory authority the power to order electricity undertakings to reimburse their final customers for the sums paid by those customers to cover ‘administrative management costs’ pursuant to a contractual term considered to be unlawful by that authority, including in cases where that order for repayment is based not on considerations of the quality of the relevant service provided by those undertakings, but on the breach of obligations relating to tariff transparency.

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — IP, DD, ZI, SS, HYA

(Case C-269/22, (1) IP and Others (Establishment of the accuracy of the facts in the main proceedings — II))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - The second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to a fair trial - Right to the presumption of innocence - Account of the factual context in a request for a preliminary ruling in criminal matters - Establishment of the accuracy of certain facts in order to be able to make an admissible request for a preliminary ruling to the Court - Compliance with the procedural safeguards provided for under national law for judgments on the merits)

(2023/C 179/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: IP, DD, ZI, SS, HYA

Other party to the proceedings: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and of Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as not precluding a national court or tribunal in criminal matters, before any judgment on the merits, from establishing, with due regard for the procedural safeguards provided for by national law, the accuracy of certain facts in order to be able to make an admissible request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice.

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.8.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — PT v VB

(Case C-343/22, (1) PT (Order for payment under Swiss law))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Lugano II Convention - Procedure on the recognition and enforcement of judgments - Article 34(2) - Document which institutes the proceedings in the State of origin - Due notification of an order for payment followed by improper service of a request for an action for repayment under Swiss law)

(2023/C 179/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PT

Defendant: VB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(2) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008,

must be interpreted as meaning that the statement of claim in an action for repayment under Swiss law, which was brought after a Swiss order for payment had been issued previously and which did not include an application for dismissal of the objection lodged against that order for payment, constitutes the document which instituted the proceedings, within the meaning of that provision.

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial No 1 de Pontevedra — Spain) — Dalarjo SL and Others v Renault Trucks Sasu

(Case C-285/21, (1) Dalarjo and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law - European Commission decision finding an infringement - Specialised trucks - Articulated dumper)

(2023/C 179/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial No 1 de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dalarjo SL and Others

Defendant: Renault Trucks Sasu

Operative part of the order

European Commission Decision C(2016) 4673 of 19 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) must be interpreted as meaning that specialised trucks, including articulated dumpers, fall within the products covered by the cartel found in that decision.

(1)  Date of filing: 28.4.2021.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca — Spain) — AW, PN v Caixabank SA

(Case C-254/22, (1) Caixabank)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 2014/17/EU - Mortgage loan - Variable interest rate - Term providing for the application of an interest rate calculated on the basis of a mortgage loan reference index (IRPH) plus 0,50 % - Criteria for assessing whether such a term is unfair - Requirements of good faith, balance and transparency - Consequences of a finding that the term is unfair)

(2023/C 179/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AW and PN

Defendant: Caixabank SA

Operative part of the order

(1)  Date lodged: 12.4.2022.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH

(Case C-607/22, (1) Eurowings (Non-existent flight))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 2 - Concept of ‘operating air carrier’ - Flight booked through a tour operator - Allegedly non-existent flight)

(2023/C 179/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Eurowings GmbH

Respondent: Flightright GmbH

Operative part of the order

Article 2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91,

must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier cannot be classified as an ‘operating air carrier’, within the meaning of that provision, where a passenger has concluded a contract with a tour operator for a particular flight, with a flight number and a date, which was supposed to be operated by that air carrier, without the air carrier ever having scheduled a flight with that flight number for that date, but may be regarded as an ‘operating air carrier’, within the meaning of that provision, where it has made an offer which, as the case may be, has been the subject of subsequent amendments on its part.

(1)  Date lodged: 20.9.2022.

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KO against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-119/22 AJ, KO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-485/22 P)

(2023/C 179/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KO (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KO should bear her own costs.

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KM against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-120/22 AJ, KM v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-486/22 P)

(2023/C 179/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KM (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KM should bear his own costs.

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KR against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-121/22 AJ, KR v Council of the European Union, European Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS)

(Case C-487/22 P)

(2023/C 179/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KR (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS)

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KR should bear her own costs.

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KQ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-122/22 AJ, KQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-488/22 P)

(2023/C 179/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KQ (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KQ should bear her own costs.

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by VZ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-127/22 AJ, VZ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-489/22 P)

(2023/C 179/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: VZ (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that VZ should bear her own costs.

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KN against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-139/22 AJ, KN v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-490/22 P)

(2023/C 179/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KN (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KN should bear her own costs.

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KP against the order of the President of the General Court delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-140/22 AJ, KP v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-491/22 P)

(2023/C 179/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KP (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KP should bear her own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 29 December 2022 — Biohemp Concept Srl v Direcția pentru Agricultură Județeană Alba

(Case C-793/22, Biohemp Concept)

(2023/C 179/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and applicant at first instance: Biohemp Concept Srl

Respondent and defendant at first instance: Direcția pentru Agricultură Județeană Alba

Question referred

Must Regulations Nos 1307/2013 (1) and 1308/2013 (2) and Articles 35, 36 and 38 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation in so far as it prohibits the cultivation of hemp (Cannabis sativa) in hydroponic systems in indoor environments prepared for that purpose?

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 — M-GbR v Finanzamt O

(Case C-68/23, Finanzamt O)

(2023/C 179/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: M-GbR

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt O

Questions referred

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), in the version of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the treatment of vouchers (OJ 2016 L 177, p. 9).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — MA v FCA Italy SpA and FPT Industrial SpA

(Case C-81/23, FCA Italy and FPT Industrial)

(2023/C 179/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: MA

Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: FCA Italy SpA, FPT Industrial SpA

Question referred

Must point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012’) be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for tortious liability against the developer of a diesel engine with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (2) on type approval, the place where the harmful event occurred in a case where the vehicle was bought by the applicant domiciled in Member State B (in this case: Austria) from a third party established in Member State C (in this case: Germany) is

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

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) lodged on 15 February 2023 — Landkreis Jerichower Land v A.

(Case C-85/23, Landkreis Jerichower Land)

(2023/C 179/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Landkreis Jerichower Land

Respondent: A.

Question referred

Must Article 24(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 (1) of 19 October 2009, as last amended by Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1009, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘storage’ covers an interruption of transport operations during which containers of Category 3 animal by-products are transferred to another vehicle and kept in that vehicle for a number of hours (up to eight) before being transported onwards to a processing plant, without the material being treated or transferred to other containers?

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 (OJ 2019 L 170, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 8 March 2023 by Hecht Pharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 January 2023 in Case T-346/21, Hecht Pharma GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-142/23 P)

(2023/C 179/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hecht Pharma GmbH (represented by: C. Sachs, Rechtsanwältin, and J. Sachs, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Gufic BioSciences Ltd.

Form of order sought

Should the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant claims that the Court should:

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that the appeal relates to procedural errors and matters which, with respect to the interpretation of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, (1) taking into account recital 28 thereof and in relation to the goods ‘medicines’ in Class 5, go beyond the decision at issue and raise issues of principle.

It maintains that, according to the literal meaning of the term ‘medicine’, the public expects a product capable of preventing, alleviating and curing a human disease.

According to the appellant, the General Court did not base its assessment on the significance of the particular ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’ on the packaging, but merely considered the term ‘Medicine’ to mean ‘medicinal product’ and therefore failed to take into account all the facts and circumstances.

The General Court concluded that the product is a medicinal product by presentation on the basis of the particulars on the packaging (Ayurvedic Medicine and its indications). However, the appellant argues that it would not in that case be a medicinal product according to the literal meaning, but is merely presented as such. The Court of Justice has held that medicinal products by presentation do not have the effect which consumers are entitled to expect. On the basis of their lack of effect, the Court’s intention is to protect consumers from medicinal products by presentation (judgment of 15 January 2009, Hecht-Pharma, C-140/07, EU:C:2009:5, paragraph 25; judgment of 15 November 2007, Commission v Germany, C-319/05, EU:C:2007:678, paragraph 61). The appellant submits that use which preserves rights is therefore excluded in the case of a medicinal product by presentation since, in accordance with Article 87 of Directive 2001/83/EC, (2) that product may not be advertised.

The appellant maintains that, for any category of goods, a product which only appears to belong to that category of goods may not, in principle, give rise to use which preserves rights. If it is merely presented as such by means of particulars on the packaging, while the product itself does not correspond to the characteristics of the category of goods, it fails to comply with the requirements under recital 28 and Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.

According to the appellant, when assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial use of the mark is real, particularly the practices regarded as warranted in the relevant economic sector as a means of maintaining or creating market shares for the medicinal products protected by the mark, the nature of those goods or services, the characteristics of the market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark.

Furthermore, it submits that genuine use of a trade mark cannot be proved by means of probabilities or presumptions, but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence of effective and sufficient use of the trade mark on the market concerned.

Under recital 28 and Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, the use of general terms includes only goods clearly covered by the literal meaning of the general term.

According to the appellant, what is indicated on the packaging is not the term ‘medicinal product’, but rather ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’. The documents submitted by the intervener designated the goods as ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’ and not as medicines. The appellant maintains that the General Court simply interpreted the term ‘Medicine’ as meaning ‘medicinal product’, thereby making a mere presumption, but did not interpret the actual particular ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’.

The appellant asserts that it not only referred to the laws in India, the country of origin of the product, but also provided evidence, obtained through questioning of an instructed representative of the Indian federal authority, that, even in India, a distinction is made between medicinal products and ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’.

The General Court stated that the relevant judicial and administrative decisions designated the product in question as a ‘non-harmful medicine’. It failed to take into account documents submitted by the appellant according to which the product was denied authorisation in Germany on account of significant toxicological effects and according to which subsequent judicial proceedings had confirmed that decision as final.

In Germany, an opinion of an administrative official cannot overturn a final judgment. However, the General Court took the opposite view.

The General Court stated that a medical prescription is evidence of a medicine, which the appellant also did not dispute. The appellant submits that this is untrue. At the hearing, the appellant’s representative expressly stated that, due to therapeutic freedom in Germany, doctors are even permitted to prescribe food. The General Court presumed that consumers would perceive the product as a medicinal product on account of its presentation. It did not take into account the knowledge of specialised circles which would very likely be aware that ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’ products are ineffective and that the product in question was denied authorisation.

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (codification) (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2023 — Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl and Others

(Case C-148/23, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici)

(2023/C 179/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Respondents: Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl, Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl, Erg Eolica Campania SpA, Erg Eolica Fossa del Lupo Srl, Erg Eolica Amaroni Srl, Erg Eolica Adriatica Srl, Erg Eolica San Vincenzo Srl, Erg Eolica San Circeo Srl, Erg Eolica Faeto Srl, Green Vicari Srl, Erg Wind Energy Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 3 Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 6 Srl, Erg Wind 4 Srl, Erg Wind 6 Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 5 Srl, Erg Wind 2000 Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 2 Srl, Erg Wind Sardegna Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 4 Srl, Erg Hydro Srl, Erg Power Generation SpA, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Question referred

Must Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (1) in particular recitals 8, 14, 25 and Articles 1 and 3, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law, such as that resulting from the provisions of decreto legislativo 3 marzo 2011, n. 28 (Legislative Decree No 28 of 3 March 2011) and decreto ministeriale 6 luglio 2012 (Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012) — as interpreted by the settled case-law of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) — which makes the granting of incentives subject to the conclusion of private-law contracts between GSE and the entity responsible for the plant, including plants for the production of electricity powered by renewable sources which began operating before 31 December 2012?

(1)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 20 March 2023 — UP CAFFE d.o.o. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske

(Case C-171/23, UP CAFFE)

(2023/C 179/28)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Upravni sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UP CAFFE d.o.o.

Defendant: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske

Question referred

Does EU law impose an obligation on the national authorities and courts to determine liability for value added tax (and not to refuse a claim for a refund) where the objective facts of the case indicate that VAT fraud has been committed through the creation of a new company, that is to say, by interrupting the continuity of the previous company’s taxable activity, in the case where the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that it was participating in such an activity, and where, at the time when the chargeable event occurred, national law did not provide for such a determination of liability?

Action brought on 23 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-186/23)

(2023/C 179/29)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Gr. Koleva and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/790 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC lays down rules which aim to harmonise further Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, taking into account, in particular, digital and cross-border uses of protected content. It also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights, on the facilitation of licences, as well as rules which aim to ensure a well-functioning marketplace for the exploitation of works and other subject matter. Article 29 of that directive stipulates 7 June 2021 as the time limit for the Member States to transpose the directive. Paragraph 2 of that article states that ‘Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive’.

On 23 July 2022, the Commission sent the Republic of Bulgaria a letter of formal notice and, on 19 May 2022, a reasoned opinion. Despite this, the measures transposing the directive were still not adopted or in any event were not notified to the Commission.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)  OJ 2019 L 130, p. 92.

Action brought on 28 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-201/23)

(2023/C 179/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and B. Sasinowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The deadline for the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council expired on 7 June 2021.

Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council lays down rules aimed at further harmonising Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the internal market, with a particular focus on digital and cross-border uses of protected content. The Directive also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights, the facilitation of licensing, as well as rules aimed at ensuring the proper functioning of the market for the exploitation of works and other protected subject matter.

According to Article 29(1) of the directive: ‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 7 June 2021. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States’.

The Commission issued a letter of formal notice to the Republic of Poland on 23 July 2021. On 19 May 2022, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Republic of Poland. Despite this, the transposing measures have not yet been adopted by the Republic of Poland or notified to the Commission.

(1)  OJ 2019 L 130, p. 92.

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-211/23)

(2023/C 179/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, updates the rules relating to copyright, so as to take into account digital technologies, which have transformed the way in which creative content is produced, distributed and accessed. Article 29(1) of that directive sets 7 June 2021 as the time limit for transposition by the Member States. Under Article 29(2), ‘Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive’.

On 23 June 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Portuguese Republic. On 19 May 2022, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to that Member State. Nonetheless, measures transposing that directive in full have yet to be adopted or, in any event, communicated to the Commission.

(1)  OJ 2019 L 130, p. 92.

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-214/23)

(2023/C 179/32)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and C. Vang, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC updates the copyright rules in order to take account of the digital technologies that have transformed the way creative content is produced, distributed and accessed. It is apparent from Article 29(1) of the directive, that that directive is to be transposed into national law by 7 June 2021, and that the Member States are immediately to inform the Commission thereof.

The Kingdom of Denmark has not fulfilled that obligation. On 24 June 2021 the Kingdom of Denmark communicated to the Commission its transposition of Articles 15 and 17 of the Directive, but not its transposition of the rest of the directive. Therefore, on 23 July 2021, the Commission sent Denmark a letter of formal notice. On 24 September 2021, the Danish Government replied to the letter of formal notice and acknowledged that the directive had not been fully transposed into Danish law. On 19 May 2022, the Commission sent Denmark a reasoned opinion, to which the Danish Government replied on 30 June 2022. In the reply, the Danish Government indicated that the directive still had not been transposed in full into Danish law. The Danish Government last indicated in March 2023 that the Kingdom of Denmark still had not adopted all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive.

The directive was adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and the case therefore comes within the scope of Article 260(3) TFEU. Denmark has not fulfilled the obligation set out in Article 29 of the directive to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 7 June 2021 and to immediately inform the Commission thereof. The conditions for the application of Article 260(3) TFEU are therefore satisfied.

Against that background, the Commission calls on the Court to order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay a lump sum and penalty payments pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, and to set those sanctions in accordance with the Commission’s communication on economic sanctions in infringement procedures.

(1)  OJ 2019 L 130, p. 92.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission

(Case T-500/17 RENV) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (excluding cast iron) or steel (excluding stainless steel), of circular cross-section and of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Causal link - Article 3(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Manifest error of assessment)

(2023/C 179/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd (Huangshi, China) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA (Roman, Romania), Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s. (Chomutov, Czech Republic), Vallourec Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 of 11 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2017 L 121, p. 3), in so far as it concerns it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Universität Bremen v REA

(Case T-660/19 RENV) (1)

(Research and technological development - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ - Call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 - REA decision rejecting a proposal - Error of fact - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment)

(2023/C 179/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Bremen (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: C. Schmid, Professor)

Defendant: European Research Executive Agency (represented by: V. Canetti and S. Payan-Lagrou, acting as Agents, and C. Wagner and R. van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of decision Ares(2019) 4590599 of the European Research Executive Agency (REA) of 16 July 2019 rejecting the proposal that it submitted in relation to call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Tazzetti v Commission

(Joined Cases T-825/19 and T-826/19) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Undertakings with the same beneficial owner - Single producer or importer - Act having an adverse effect - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Request to modify the application - Inadmissibility - Plea of illegality - Interpretation of an implementing regulation consistent with the basic regulation - Implementing power of the Commission)

(2023/C 179/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant in Case T-825/19: Tazzetti SpA (Volpiano, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, E. Ferrero and C. Vivani, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-826/19: Tazzetti SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, E. Ferrero and C. Vivani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their actions brought on 4 December 2019 under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment, first, of decisions contained in three letters of 27 and 30 September 2019 and in two emails of 6 and 20 November 2019 from the European Commission, made pursuant to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/661 of 25 April 2019 ensuring the smooth functioning of the electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market (OJ 2019 L 112, p. 11), and, secondly, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1604 of 23 October 2020 determining, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases, reference values for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2023 for each producer or importer that has lawfully placed hydrofluorocarbons on the market in the Union from 1 January 2015, as reported under that Regulation (OJ 2020 L 364, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission

(Case T-868/19) (1)

(REACH - Evaluation of registration dossiers and compliance check of information provided by registrants - Request for further studies for the purposes of the registration dossier for dimethyl ether - Pre-natal developmental toxicity study - Extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study - Dose-range finding study - Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Animal testing - Article 25 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 179/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nouryon Industrial Chemicals BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Knoell NL BV (Maarssen, Netherlands), Grillo-Werke AG (Duisburg, Germany), PCC Trade & Services GmbH (Duisburg) (represented by: R. Cana, Z. Romata and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agent), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, A. Hanje and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Runeskjöld, C. Meyer-Seitz, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder, R. Shahsavan Eriksson and O. Simonsson, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere, S. Mahoney and N. Herbatschek, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 7336 final of 16 October 2019 on the compliance check of a registration of dimethyl ether, adopted on referral by the European Chemicals Agency, on the basis of Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Satabank v ECB

(Case T-72/20) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Supervised entity - Composite administrative procedure - Denial of access to the file - Decision 2004/258/EC - Access to ECB documents)

(2023/C 179/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Satabank plc (St Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: G. Buono, A. Lefterov and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 26 November 2019 by which it rejected its request for access to the file concerning it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission (Blue Air; COVID-19 and rescue aid)

(Case T-142/21) (1)

(State aid - Romanian air transport market - Aid granted by Romania to Blue Air in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic - Blue Air rescue aid - Loan guaranteed by the Romanian State - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Article 107(2)(b) TFEU - Assessment of the damage - Causal link - Beneficiary’s pre-existing difficulties - Taking avoidable costs into account - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Contribution of the aid to an objective of common interest - ‘One time, last time’ condition for rescue aid - Principle of non-discrimination - Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 179/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 5830 final of 20 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57026 (2020/N) — Romania — COVID-19: Aid to Blue Air.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Plusmusic v EUIPO — Groupe Canal + (+music)

(Case T-344/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark +music - Earlier national figurative mark + - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use)

(2023/C 179/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Plusmusic AG (Dietikon, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Maier and A. Spieß, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Groupe Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: M. Georges-Picot and C. Cuny, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 April 2021 (Case R 1236/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Coinbase v EUIPO — bitFlyer (coinbase)

(Case T-366/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark coinbase - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coinbase, Inc. (Oakland, California, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: bitFlyer Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2021 (Case R 1751/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — ZR v EUIPO

(Case T-400/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Vacancy notice - Application for interinstitutional transfer - First paragraph of Article 8 of the Staff Regulations - Transfer refusal - Priority order - Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Duty of care - Corrigendum)

(2023/C 179/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Predonzani and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 September 2020 rejecting her application for a transfer to EUIPO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-505/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 June 2021 (Case R 1003/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-535/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2021 (Case R 1004/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-545/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2021 (Case R 1011/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-555/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2021 (Case R 1007/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-575/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case R 1006/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-576/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case R 1005/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-577/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1010/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-578/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case R 1009/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-588/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a part of the fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2021 (Case R 1008/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — B&Bartoni v EUIPO — Hypertherm (Electrode to insert into a torch)

(Case T-617/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an electrode to insert into a torch - Ground for invalidity - Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Component part of a complex product)

(2023/C 179/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: B&Bartoni spol. s r.o. (Dolní Cetno, Czech Republic) (represented by: E. Lachmannová, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hypertherm, Inc. (Hanover, New Hampshire, United States) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2021 (Case R 2843/2019-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa)

(Case T-650/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark casa - Absolute ground for invalidity - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Casa International (Olen, Belgium) (represented by: F. Cornette and T. Poels-Ryckeboer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Interstyle BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Verbeek, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2021 (Case R 1280/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BIO-BEAUTÉ)

(Case T-750/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BIO-BEAUTÉ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 52(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75, first sentence of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beauty Biosciences LLC (Dallas, Texas, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and R. Raponi, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and the alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a band with an acute angle)

(Case T-5/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a band with an acute angle - Earlier EU and national figurative marks representing a band - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration)

(2023/C 179/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 October 2021 (Case R 910/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — NY v Commission

(Case T-21/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Commission’s internal security investigation - Alleged acts of violence by the Commission’s security personnel - Prohibition of entry into buildings - Confiscation of service pass - Claim for compensation - Dismissal of the claim - Principle of good administration - Right to integrity and dignity - Error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2023/C 179/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 April 2021 by which the latter dismissed his claim for compensation and, where appropriate, of the decision of 4 October 2021 by which the latter rejected his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — CIMV v Commission

(Case T-26/22) (1)

(Research and technological development - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Recovery of a debt - Repayment by instalments - Substantive accuracy of the facts - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Right to be heard - Proportionality)

(2023/C 179/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret, R. Rard and P. Renié, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Ilkova and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2021) 7932 final of 28 October 2021 concerning the recovery of an amount in the sum of EUR 5 888 214,59 plus late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-113/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Refusal of the request - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Amicable settlement - Lack of consent - Retroactive promotion decision)

(2023/C 179/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: R. Spáč and A. Ireland, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and L. Lence de Frutos, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 15 June 2021 by which the European External Action Service (EEAS) refused, in part, his request for assistance submitted on 18 February 2021 under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and in accordance with the amicable settlement reached between the parties on 9 February 2021 and the alleged implied decision to promote him to grade AD 14 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2018, as was brought to his attention by his payslip for the month of May 2021, and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage he claims to have suffered as a result of EEAS’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Perfetti Van Melle v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical container with a wavy outline)

(Case T-199/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a cylindrical container with a wavy outline - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 179/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle SpA (Lainate, Italy) (represented by: P. Testa and C. Pappalardo, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 1530/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Fun Factory v EUIPO — I Love You (love you so much)

(Case T-306/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark love you so much - Earlier EU figurative mark I LOVE YOU SINCE FOREVER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 179/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fun Factory GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: K.-D. Franzen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: I Love You, Inc. (Lewes, Delaware, United States)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 March 2022 (Case R 1464/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — celotec v EUIPO — Decotec Printing (DECOTEC)

(Case T-308/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark DECOTEC - Absolute ground for invalidity - Lack of descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: celotec GmbH & Co. KG (Sendenhorst, Germany) (represented by: E. Warnke and J. Römelt, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Decotec Printing, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2022 (Case R 1025/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 266, 11.7.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — psmtec (SEVEN SEVEN 7)

(Case T-408/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark SEVEN SEVEN 7 - Earlier EU word mark Seven - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No genuine use - Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 179/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: adp Merkur GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: psmtec GmbH (Illertissen, Germany)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 April 2022 (Case R 1498/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 318, 22.8.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Machková v EUIPO — Aceites Almenara (ALMARA SOAP)

(Case T-436/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ALMARA SOAP - Earlier EU word mark ALMENARA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 179/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Veronika Machková (Šestajovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Balcar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Aceites Almenara, SL (Puebla de Almenara, Spain)

Re:

By her action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 April 2022 (Case R 1613/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Mariani v Parliament

(Case T-196/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office - Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament - No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Mariani (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision D 301939 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of the European Parliament of 3 March 2022 to exclude him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Lacapelle v Parliament

(Case T-240/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office - Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament - No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Lin Lacapelle (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision D 301937 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of the European Parliament of 3 March 2022 to exclude him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Juvin v Parliament

(Case T-241/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office - Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament - No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hervé Juvin (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision D 301936 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of the European Parliament of 3 March 2022 to exclude him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Mordalski v EUIPO — Anita Food (ANITA)

(Case T-254/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - EU trade mark that has ceased to exist - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 179/66)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Mordalski (Działoszyn, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Anita Food, SA (Lima, Peru)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 March 2022 (Case R 1616/2021-4).

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

Order of the General Court of 23 March 2023 — Domaine Boyar International v EUIPO — Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (BOLGARÉ)

(Case T-300/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BOLGARÉ - Previous designation of origin ‘Bolgheri’ - Article 8(4a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 46(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013)

(2023/C 179/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Domaine Boyar International EAD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: F. Bojinova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Consorzio per la tutela dei vini con denominazione di origine Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia) (Castagneto Carducci, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and N. Colombo, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2022 (Case R 2564/2019-2).

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 276, 18.7.2022.

Order of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Oxyzoglou v Commission

(Case T-342/22) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Retirement pensions - Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU - Transfer to the EU scheme - Additional years of pensionable service - Action for annulment - Claim for repayment of part of the capital transferred - Unjust enrichment - Time limit for complaints - Manifest inadmissibility - Application for an order - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2023/C 179/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Despina Oxyzoglou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Grisay and A. Ansay, lawyers)

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

Interveners, in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and M. Windisch, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, principally, (i) to have set aside the decision of the European Commission of 11 March 2022 rejecting her complaint which sought annulment of the opinion of 21 April 2020 determining her rights to a retirement pension, and (ii) to have her file referred to the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment in order to determine the amount to be returned to her, and in the alternative, to have the Commission be ordered to pay the sum of EUR 30 439,50, in respect of unjust enrichment, and, in the further alternative, to request the Commission to clarify its calculation method and to apply it in the present case.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

Order of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Mozelsio v Commission

(Case T-343/22) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Retirement pensions - Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU - Transfer to the EU scheme - Additional years of pensionable service - Action for annulment - Claim for repayment of part of the capital transferred - Unjust enrichment - Time limit for complaints - Manifest inadmissibility - Application for an order - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2023/C 179/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Muriel Mozelsio (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: D. Grisay and A. Ansay, lawyers)

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

Interveners, in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and M. Windisch, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, principally, (i) to have set aside the decision of the European Commission of 11 March 2022 rejecting her complaint which sought annulment of the opinion of 16 June 2020 determining her rights to a retirement pension, and (ii) to have her file referred to the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment in order to determine the amount to be returned to her, and in the alternative, to have the Commission be ordered to pay the sum of EUR 15 051,38, in respect of unjust enrichment, and, in the further alternative, to request the Commission to clarify its calculation method and to apply it in the present case.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

Order of the General Court of 31 March 2023 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (MATE MATE)

(Case T-482/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MATE MATE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Misleading character - Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 179/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, D. Mienert and J. Si-Ha Selbmann, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 May 2022 (Case R 406/2021-1).

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

Order of the General Court of 30 March 2023 — ATPN v Commission

(Case T-567/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 - Nuclear energy - Sustainable activity - Association - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, A. Nijenhuis and C. Auvret, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities (OJ 2022 L 188, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 418, 31.10.2022.

Order of the General Court of 28 March 2023 — Primicerj v Commission

(Case T-612/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Initial refusal of access - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Request for the Court to issue directions - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2023/C 179/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Paola Primicerj (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Iorio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina, acting as Agent)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 August 2022 refusing her request for access to the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, issued by the Commission to the Italian Republic in the context of infringement procedure 2016/4081, relating to the compatibility with EU law of the national law governing the services provided by magistrati onorari (honorary judges).

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 432, 14.11.2022.

Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — TP v Commission

(Case T-776/22 R)

(Interim relief - Public procurement - Financial Regulation - Exclusion from procurement procedures funded by the general budget of the European Union and by the EDF for a period of two years - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of any urgency)

(2023/C 179/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TP (represented by: T. Faber, F. Bonke and I. Sauvagnac, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro, F. Behre and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2022, by which it was excluded from participating in award procedures governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1), from being selected for implementing EU funds and from participating in award procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 of 26 November 2018 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund, and repealing Regulation (EU) 2015/323 (OJ 2018 L 307, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Order of the President of the General Court of 27 March 2023 — Cogebi and Cogebi v Council

(Case T-782/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Prohibition on purchasing, importing or transferring, directly or indirectly, goods which generate significant revenues for Russia into the Union - Application for suspension of operation - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cogebi (Beersel, Belgium), Cogebi, a.s. (Tábor, Czech Republic) (represented by: H. over de Linden, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Nadbath, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek suspension of the operation of Annex VI to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 259 I, p. 3), in so far as it amends Annex XXI to Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), by inserting CN code 6814 into the list of goods and technology referred to in Article 3i of Regulation No 833/2014.

Operative part of the order

Order of the President of the General Court of 27 March 2023 — Enmacc v Commission

(Case T-1/23 R)

(Interim relief - Public supply contracts - Services for the organisation of demand aggregation and tendering of gas under the EU Energy Platform - Application for interim measures - Weighing of interests)

(2023/C 179/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Enmacc GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. von Bonin, A. Pliego Selie and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, S. Romoli, G. Gattinara and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, suspension of the operation of the European Commission decision of 12 December 2022 to initiate or continue the negotiated procurement procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041 without prior publication of a contract notice and without having invited the applicant to participate; in the alternative, suspension of the award of the contract in relation to the procurement procedure at issue and, in the further alternative, suspension of the signature of the contract in relation to that procedure.

Operative part of the order

Action brought on 9 January 2023 — Koppers Denmark and Others v Commission

(Case T-9/23)

(2023/C 179/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Koppers Denmark (Nyborg, Denmark) and 9 others (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1950 of 14 October 2022 renewing the approval of creosote as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 8 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2022, L 269, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, as amended (OJ 2012, L 167, p. 1).

(3)  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, as amended.(OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1).

Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Feport v Commission

(Case T-17/23)

(2023/C 179/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Federation of European Private Port Operators (Feport) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Le Bret, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the Applicant considers that all conditions of the failure to act pursuant to article 265 TFUE are fulfilled in this case and that this failure entails several breaches of EU Treaties, principles and secondary law. In this respect it puts forward four pleas in law:

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-18/23)

(2023/C 179/78)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Leftheriotou, A.-E. Vasilopoulou and O. Pastellas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organization of an information system in this field (OJ 1994 L 178, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 34, p. 549).

Action brought on 23 January 2023 — Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) and Others v Commission

(Case T-37/23)

(2023/C 179/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  OJ 2023, C 52, p. 10.

(2)  Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State Aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime (notified under document C(2018) 7848) (OJ 2019, L 119, p. 151).

(3)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).

Action brought on 6 February 2023 — FFPE Council section v Council

(Case T-44/23)

(2023/C 179/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Civil Service Federation Council section (FFPE Council section) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action for annulment of the Council’s note of 24 November 2022 informing the applicant of the findings and consequences of the verification procedure opened against it pursuant to the agreement of 28 March 2006 concluded between the Council of the European Union and the trade unions or professional organisations of the staff of the General Secretariat of the Council (‘the agreement’), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Case T-94/23)

(2023/C 179/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/708 of 5 May 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances 2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid methylester, acetic acid, aclonifen, aluminium ammonium sulphate, aluminium phosphide, aluminium silicate, beflubutamid, benthiavalicarb, boscalid, calcium carbide, captan, cymoxanil, dimethomorph, dodemorph, ethephon, ethylene, extract from tea tree, fat distilation residues, fatty acids C7 to C20, fluoxastrobin, flurochloridone, folpet, formetanate, gibberellic acid, gibberellins, hydrolysed proteins, iron sulphate, magnesium phosphide, metam, metamitron, metazachlor, metribuzin, milbemectin, phenmedipham, pirimiphos-methyl, plant oils/clove oil, plant oils/rape seed oil, plant oils/spear mint oil, propamocarb, proquinazid, prothioconazole, pyrethrins, quartz sand, fish oil, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/sheep fat, S-metolachlor, Straight Chain Lepidopteran Pheromones, sulcotrione, tebuconazole and urea (OJ 2022 L 133, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

Action brought on 21 February 2023 — PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T-104/23)

(2023/C 179/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission decision breaches:

More specifically, the Commission decision must be annulled to the extent that it refuses access to documents based on an unlawful application of the exceptions relating to the protection of court proceedings [Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001] and of the decision- making process [Article 4(3), second subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001].

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

Action brought on 28 February 2023 — VB v BCE

(Case T-124/23)

(2023/C 179/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Nardi v ECB

(Case T-131/23)

(2023/C 179/84)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Anna Nardi (Naples, Italy) (represented by: M. De Siena, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Decision 2004/257/EC of the European Central Bank of 19 February 2004 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank (ECB/2004/2) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 33), as amended by Decision ECB/2014/1 of the European Central Bank of 22 January 2014 (OJ 2014 L 95, p. 56).

Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-137/23)

(2023/C 179/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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

(2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 67).

Action brought on 17 March 2023 — VI v Commission

(Case T-147/23)

(2023/C 179/86)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: VI (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 18 March 2023 — VK v Commission

(Case T-148/23)

(2023/C 179/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: VK (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 20 March 2023 — MBDA France v Commission

(Case T-154/23)

(2023/C 179/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MBDA France (Le Plessis-Robinson, France) (represented by: F. de Bure and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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