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

(2023/C 261/01)

Last publication

OJ C 252, 17.7.2023

Past publications

OJ C 235, 3.7.2023

OJ C 223, 26.6.2023

OJ C 216, 19.6.2023

OJ C 205, 12.6.2023

OJ C 189, 30.5.2023

OJ C 173, 15.5.2023

These texts are available on:

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

Appeal brought on 31 August 2021 by the Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-42/21 Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v European Parliament

(Case C-546/21 P)

(2023/C 261/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris (represented by: K. Koźmiński, legal advisor, T. Siemiński, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 15 February 2023, the Court (Second Chamber) set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 25 June 2021, Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament (T-42/21, not published, EU:T:2021:385), and referred the case back to the General Court of the European Union.

Appeal brought on 8 December 2022 by WV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2022 in Case T-618/21, WV v CdT

(Case C-750/22 P)

(2023/C 261/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

By order of 13 June 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 1 March 2023 — N. A. K., E. A. K., Y. A. K v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-123/23, Khan Yunis (1))

(2023/C 261/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: N. A. K., E. A. K., Y. A. K.

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Must Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU, (2) read in conjunction with Article 2(q) of that directive, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which an application for international protection lodged in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if an application for international protection previously lodged in another Member State has been finally rejected by that other Member State as unfounded?

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against AR

(Case C-179/22, (1) AR)

(2023/C 261/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Conseil national des barreaux, Conférence des bâtonniers, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Paris v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance, in the presence of: Ordre des avocats du barreau des Hauts-de-Seine

(Case C-398/21, (1) Conseil national des barreaux and Others)

(2023/C 261/06)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Z.K., M.S. v The Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-248/22, (1) The Minister for Justice and Equality)

(2023/C 261/07)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

(Case C-460/22, (1) DIGI)

(2023/C 261/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 432, 14.11.2022.

Order of the President of the Court of 15 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri, interested parties: Sisal Entertainment SpA, Magic Games Sas di A. Malfatti, Magic Games Srl, Codacons

(Case C-463/21, (1) Global Starnet)

(2023/C 261/09)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2023 — M.E.O. v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-202/23, Baabda and Others (1))

(2023/C 261/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.E.O.

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 April 2023 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

(Case C-217/23, Laghman (1))

(2023/C 261/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Interested party: A N

Questions referred

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name which does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 5 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against Ş.C.F. and H.F.I.

(Case C-219/23, Dudea) (1)

(2023/C 261/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendants: Ş.C.F. and H.F.I.

Civil party: Ministerul Investițiilor și Proiectelor Europene

Person liable under civil law: H.A. SRL

Interested party: Ministerul public — Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție

Question referred

Must Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, (2) read in conjunction with Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation on the time-barring of criminal liability which results from the application, in accordance with decisions of the Curțea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania), of a national standard of protection of fundamental rights with regard to the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law and which obliges the national courts to refer, in cases pending before them, applying the lex mitior principle, to a rule pertaining to the interruption of the limitation period, as a rule of substantive criminal law, which postdates the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings and which, according to the decisions of the constitutional court, no longer provides for any interruption of the limitation period, whereas the rule in force on the date of the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings, which pre-dates those decisions, governed, in a manner that was clear, precise, foreseeable and accessible, the situations in which the limitation period could be interrupted, in relation to which the special limitation period has not expired, in so far as the application of that piece of national legislation is such as to compromise the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law and to prevent the imposition of effective and dissuasive penalties for offences of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union? In a similar vein, must those provisions be interpreted as requiring the national courts to disapply, in criminal proceedings concerning such offences, that piece of national legislation if the application thereof would have the effects referred to above and to apply, as regards the interruption of the limitation period, a rule having the clear, precise, foreseeable and accessible content of the rule in force on the date of the facts which prevents those effects from materialising?

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 1995 C 316, p. 49.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 11 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against L.D.

(Case C-223/23, Redu) (1)

(2023/C 261/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Appellant

L.D.

Questions referred

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.

(3)  Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against SS, IP, ZI, DD, HYA

(Case C-229/23, HYA and Others)

(2023/C 261/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

SS, IP, ZI, DD and HYA

Questions referred

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, (1) read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)], as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgment of 16 February 2023 in Case C-349/21 (2) and in the light of recital 11 of that directive, of Article 52(1) and Article 53 of the Charter and of the principle of equivalence, be interpreted as requiring a national court:

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

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:2023:102.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2023 — Belgian State / Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v L BV

(Case C-243/23, Drebers (1))

(2023/C 261/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Belgian State / Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën

Defendant: L BV

Questions referred

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2023 — ASG 2 Ausgleichsgesellschaft für die Sägeindustrie Nordrhein-Westfalen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-253/23, ASG)

(2023/C 261/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Dortmund

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ASG 2 Ausgleichsgesellschaft für die Sägeindustrie Nordrhein-Westfalen GmbH

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Questions referred

(1)  Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 28 April 2023 — E.P. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

(Case C-277/23, Ministarstvo financija)

(2023/C 261/17)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.P.

Other party to the proceedings: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

Questions referred

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2023 — M.M., as heir of M.R. v Ministero della Difesa

(Case C-278/23, Biltena (1))

(2023/C 261/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: M.M., as heir of M.R.

Respondent: Ministero della Difesa

Questions referred

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

Appeal brought on 30 April 2023 by Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-606/20, Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case C-281/23 P)

(2023/C 261/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV (represented by: M. Levitt, avocat, B. Byrne, and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants advance two grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the BoA had not infringed its obligation to carry out a full review of the underlying Decision 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation. At the time of the adoption of the BoA Decision, the BoA understood its legal obligations as not mandating a full review of complex technical assessments. That understanding, which is contrary to the case law of the Court of Justice, was reflected in the explicit wording of the BoA Decision. It was not open to the General Court to reinterpret the explicit wording in the BoA Decision to conclude — in direct contradiction with that wording — that the BoA had carried out a full review.

Second, the General Court misapplied Articles 21 and 37 of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 (1) of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing in its assessment of the legal basis for ‘required’ platform functions under Article 21. The appellants submit that the General Court committed two specific legal errors. First, contrary to the terminology and structure of the Commission Regulation 2017/2195, the General Court wrongly found that capacity management through the calculation of cross-zonal capacity is a required platform function covered by Article 21, because Article 37 requires transmission system operators (‘TSOs’) to conduct a process of continuously updating cross-zonal capacity. Second, the General Court failed to respect the distinction between legal obligations on the TSOs in performing a ‘required’ platform function under Article 21, and their rights (contained in the same provision) to propose additional platform functions.

(1)  OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6.

Appeal brought on 30 April 2023 by Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-607/20, Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case C-282/23 P)

(2023/C 261/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV (represented by: M. Levitt, avocat, B. Byrne, and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants advance two grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the BoA had not infringed its obligation to carry out a full review of the underlying Decision 03/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation. At the time of the adoption of the BoA Decision, the BoA understood its legal obligations as not mandating a full review of complex technical assessments. That understanding, which is contrary to the case law of the Court of Justice, was reflected in the explicit wording of the BoA Decision. It was not open to the General Court to reinterpret the explicit wording in the BoA Decision to conclude — in direct contradiction with that wording — that the BoA had carried out a full review.

Second, the General Court misapplied Articles 20 and 37 of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 (1) of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing in its assessment of the legal basis for ‘required’ platform functions under Article 20. The appellants submit that the General Court committed two specific legal errors. First, contrary to the terminology and structure of the Commission Regulation 2017/2195, the GC wrongly found that capacity management through the calculation of cross-zonal capacity is a required platform function covered by Article 20, because Article 37 requires transmission system operators (‘TSOs’) to conduct a process of continuously updating cross-zonal capacity. Second, the General Court failed to respect the distinction between legal obligations on the TSOs in performing a ‘required’ platform function under Article 20, and their rights (contained in the same provision) to propose additional platform functions.

(1)  OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2023 — HE v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-288/23, El Baheer (1))

(2023/C 261/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HE

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

(3)  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 (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

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

(5)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — G GmbH v Hauptzollamt H

(Case C-307/23, G GmbH)

(2023/C 261/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: G GmbH

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hauptzollamt H

Question referred

Must the cost of production, in the customs territory of the European Union, of printing templates for labels be added to the transaction value under Article 32(1)(a)(ii) or Article 32(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Code (1) if the buyer established in the customs territory of the European Union makes the printing templates available free of charge in electronic form to the suppliers in the third country?

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Bistriţa — Romania) — LO v Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa, RS, TU and VW

(Case C-56/23, (1) Riaman) (2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to present the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 261/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Bistriţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LO

Interveners: Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa, RS, TU and VW

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Judecătoria Bistriţa (Court of First Instance, Bistriţa, Romania), by decision of 7 December 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1)  Date lodged: 3.2.2023.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-318/23)

(2023/C 261/24)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, M. Escobar Gómez, U. Babovič and A. Kraner, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its judgment in Case C-140/14, the Court found that the disposal of waste on Plot [No 115/1] in Teharje (Bukovžlak) had to be considered illegal and that Slovenia had infringed the obligations laid down in Article 13 and Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) Article 5(3)(e) and Article 6 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC, (2) read in conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/EC, (3) and Articles 7 to 9, 11 and 12 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC, as well as Annexes I to III thereto, by having first permitted the unauthorised disposal of waste on that site and having then not taken any measures to remove that waste.

The Republic of Slovenia has informed the European Commission of the individual measures for selecting the best way of disposing of the waste and for carrying out the works whereby the judgment in Case C-140/14 will be complied with in so far as it concerns Plot No 115/1 in Teharje (Bukovžlak). To that end, the Republic of Slovenia sent the European Commission a timetable, according to which the final implementation of the rehabilitation would take place between the first semester of 2020 and 3 November 2021.

Because there were delays in complying with the deadlines specified in the timetable referred to above, the European Commission sent the Republic of Slovenia a letter of formal notice on 8 June 2018. The Republic of Slovenia, in its response to that letter of formal notice, expressly assured the Commission that the rehabilitation works would be carried out by the original deadline specified in the timetable referred to above; however, this did not happen. An illegal landfill, established and maintained in breach of the applicable EU legislation, still exists — despite the judgment of the Court in which that breach was established — and presents a risk for the environment and human health. The European Commission has therefore decided to bring an action under Article 260(2) TFEU.

(1)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).

(2)  Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 27).

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Austrian Airlines AG v TW

(Case C-49/22, (1) Austrian Airlines (Repatriation flight))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(a) - Cancellation of a flight - Article 8(1) - Obligation to provide assistance - Concept of ‘re-routing’ - Compensation for air passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - COVID-19 pandemic - Repatriation flight organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance - Flight operated by the same operating air carrier and at the same time as the cancelled flight - Costs to be borne by the passenger in excess of the net costs of that flight)

(2023/C 261/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Austrian Airlines AG

Defendant: TW

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de — Spain) — Prestige and Limousine SL v Área Metropolitana de Barcelona, Asociación Nacional del Taxi (Antaxi), Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi, Sindicat del Taxi de Catalunya (STAC), Tapoca VTC1 SL, Agrupació Taxis Companys

(Case C-50/21, (1) Prestige and Limousine)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Article 107(1) TFEU - Private-hire vehicles (PHVs) - Licencing scheme involving the issue, in addition to a licence to provide urban and interurban transport services throughout the national territory, of a second operating licence in order to be able to provide urban transport services in a metropolitan area - Limitation of the number of licences for PHV services to one thirtieth of the licences for taxi services)

(2023/C 261/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prestige and Limousine SL

Defendants: Área Metropolitana de Barcelona, Asociación Nacional del Taxi (Antaxi), Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi, Sindicat del Taxi de Catalunya (STAC), Tapoca VTC1 SL, Agrupació Taxis Companys

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — E. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-322/22, (1) Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of sincere cooperation - Principle of effectiveness - Tax levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Breach established following a ruling of the Court of Justice - Right to be paid interest on the overpayment - National legislation limiting the right to the payment of interest to the period running until the thirtieth day following the publication of the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union)

(2023/C 261/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: E.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

interested party: Rzecznik Małych i Średnich Przedsiębiorców

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness, in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation, must be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation which, when a request for a refund of an overpayment of tax is submitted more than 30 days after the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of a ruling of the Court of Justice from which the finding that the tax at issue is contrary to EU law is derived, limits the running of the interest on the overpayment due to the taxable person concerned to the thirtieth day following that publication, or even excludes interest entirely in a situation where that overpayment was incurred by the taxable person after that thirtieth day.

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance

(Case C-407/21, (1) UFC– Que choisir and CLCV)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Package travel and linked travel arrangements - Directive (EU) 2015/2302 - Article 12(2) to (4) - Termination of a package travel contract - Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances - COVID-19 pandemic - Refund of payments made by the traveller concerned for a package - Refund in the form of a sum of money or equivalent refund in the form of a credit note (‘voucher’) - Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated - Temporary derogation from that obligation - Adjustment of the temporal effects of a decision which is taken in accordance with national law and which annuls national legislation that is contrary to that obligation)

(2023/C 261/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — Council of the European Union v Laurent Pech, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-408/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), second indent - Protection of legal advice - Article 4(3), first subparagraph - Protection of the decision-making process - Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council of the European Union’s Legal Service)

(2023/C 261/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Dumitriu-Segnana, K. Pavlaki and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Laurent Pech (represented initially by G. Andraos, avocat, O. Brouwer, advocaat, M. Hall, advokat, and B.A.R.T. Verheijen, advocaat, and subsequently by G. Andraos, O. Brouwer, T.C. van Helfteren, advocaten, and M. Hall advokat), Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by O. Simonsson, H. Eklinder, J. Lundberg, C. Meyer-Seitz, A.M. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson and H. Shev, and subsequently by O. Simonsson, H. Eklinder, C. Meyer-Seitz, A.M. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson and H. Shev, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by A.-L. Desjonquères, A.-C. Drouant and E. Leclerc, and subsequently by A.-L. Desjonquères and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents). European Commission (represented by C. Ehrbar and P. Stancanelli, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against VB (C-430/22), VB (C-468/22)

(Joined Cases C-430/22 and C-468/22, (1) VB (information for a person convicted in absentia) and Another)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 8(4) - Right to be present at the trial - Proceedings conducted in absentia - Reopening of the proceedings - Notice to the person convicted in absentia of his or her right to have the proceedings reopened)

(2023/C 261/30)

Language of the cases: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

VB(C-430/22), VB (C-468/22)

Other party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not requiring a national court, in the event of a conviction in absentia, where the conditions of Article 8(2) of that directive are not met, to make express reference to the right to a new trial in the judgment convicting the person concerned.

(1)  OJ C 408, 24.10.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt — Romania) — OZ v Lyoness Europe AG

(Case C-455/21, (1) Lyoness Europe)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 2(b) - Definition of ‘consumer’ - Contract for membership of a loyalty scheme enabling certain financial benefits to be obtained when purchasing goods and services from third-party traders)

(2023/C 261/31)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Olt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OZ

Defendant: Lyoness Europe AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who becomes a member of a scheme implemented by a commercial company and allowing, inter alia, certain financial benefits in connection with the purchase, by that natural person or by other persons participating in that scheme further to his or her referral, of goods and services from that company’s business partners, where that natural person is acting for purposes which are outside his or her trade, business or profession, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision.

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Fastweb SpA, TIM SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-468/20, (1) Fastweb and Others (Time frame for billing))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 56 TFUE - Freedom to provide services - National legislation granting the national regulatory authority the power to impose on telephony service providers a minimum time frame for the renewal of offers and a minimum time frame for billing - Consumer protection - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment)

(2023/C 261/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fastweb SpA, TIM SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

intervening parties: Telecom Italia SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Associazione Movimento Consumatori, U.Di.Con, Unione per la Difesa dei Consumatori, Wind Tre SpA, Assotelecomunicazioni (Asstel), Eolo SpA, Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (Codacons), Associazione degli utenti per i diritti telefonici — A.U.S. TEL ONLUS, Altroconsumo, Federconsumatori

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and Article 8(1), first subparagraph, (2)(a), (4)(b) and (d) and (5)(b) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Articles 20 to 22 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in conjunction with the principles of proportionality and equal treatment,

must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which confers on the national regulatory authority the power to adopt a decision requiring, on the one hand, mobile telephony service operators to have a time frame for the renewal of commercial offers and billing of not less than four weeks and, on the other hand, operators of fixed telephony and related services to have a time frame for the renewal of such offers and billing of one month or multiples thereof, provided that the two categories of services in question are, in the light of the subject matter and purpose of that national legislation, in different situations.

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-540/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Package travel and linked travel arrangements - Directive (EU) 2015/2302 - Article 12(2) to (4) - Termination of a package travel contract - Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances - COVID-19 pandemic - Refund of payments made by the traveller for the package - Refund in the form of a sum of money or in the form of a replacement package tour - Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated - Temporary derogation from that obligation)

(2023/C 261/33)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, I. Rubene and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Søndahl Wolff, and subsequently by M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-545/21, (1) ANAS)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Union Structural Funds - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 2(7) - Concept of ‘irregularity’ - Article 98(1) and (2) - Financial corrections by Member States in connection with irregularities detected - Criteria to be applied - Directive 2004/18/EC - Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) - Concept of ‘grave professional misconduct’)

(2023/C 261/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS)

Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — BNP Paribas SA v TR

(Case C-567/21, (1) BNP Paribas)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 33 and 36 - Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State - Question raised incidentally before the courts of another Member State - Effects produced by that judgment in the State of origin - Admissibility of an action brought in the Member State addressed after that judgment - National procedural rules imposing the concentration of claims in a single set of proceedings)

(2023/C 261/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BNP Paribas SA

Defendant: TR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 36 thereof,

must be interpreted as precluding the recognition, in the Member State addressed, of a judgment concerning an employment contract, given in the Member State of origin, from resulting in the inadmissibility of claims brought before a court of the Member State addressed on the ground that the legislation of the Member State of origin lays down a procedural rule for the centralisation of all claims relating to that employment contract, without prejudice to the procedural rules of the Member State addressed which are liable to apply once that recognition has occurred.

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — I.S., K.S. v YYY. S.A.

(Case C-570/21, (1) YYY (concept of ‘consumer’))

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Dual-purpose contract - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Criteria)

(2023/C 261/36)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I.S., K.S.

Defendant: YYY. S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — NN v Regione Lombardia

(Case C-636/21, (1) Regione Lombardia (Market support measures related to animal diseases))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 220 - Market support measures related to animal diseases - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 - Exceptional market support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy - National legislation - Condition for the granting of aid - Farmers operational on the market in question on the date of submission of the application - Discretion of the Member States)

(2023/C 261/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NN

Defendant: Regione Lombardia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, read in combination with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 of 2 August 2019 on exceptional market support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which is interpreted and applied so as to limit access to the support measures provided for by the latter regulation only to farmers who were still operational in the poultrymeat sector on the date of submission of the aid application.

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL v Direcţia Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca

(Case C-640/21, (1) Zes Zollner Electronic)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Union Customs Code - Excess quantity of goods discovered after the release of the goods - Article 173 - Amendment of a customs declaration - Goods other than those originally covered by the declaration to amend - Article 174 - Invalidation of a customs declaration - Article 42 - Penalties imposed by the customs authorities responsible - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446)

(2023/C 261/38)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL

Defendant: Direcţia Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — LM v KP

(Case C-654/21, (1) LM (Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Dispute before the national court - Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 124 - Action for infringement - Article 128 - Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Subject matter of that counterclaim - Article 129(3) - Rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national trade mark - Principle of procedural autonomy)

(2023/C 261/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant and counter-defendant: LM

Defendant and counter-claimant: KP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 124(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 128(1) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of an EU trade mark may relate to all the rights which the proprietor of that mark derives from its registration and that the subject matter of that counterclaim is not restricted by the scope of the dispute as defined by the action for infringement.

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — PAO Severstal (C-747/21 P), Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) (C-748/21 P) v European Commission, Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL

(Joined Cases C-747/21 P and C-748/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 - Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 18(1) - Necessary information - Absence - Article 9(4) - ‘Lesser duty rule’ - Target price - Profit margin of the Union industry - Establishment - Selection of the most recent representative year - Article 2(9) - Construction of the export price - Injury to the Union industry - Application by analogy - Calculation of the underselling margin - Statement of reasons)

(2023/C 261/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: PAO Severstal (C-747/21 P), Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK), (C-748/21 P) (represented by: M. Krestiyanova and N. Tuominen, avocată)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: K. Blanck and J.-F. Brakeland, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents), Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — TC v Parliament

(Case T-309/21) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules governing expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Reasonable time - Burden of proof - Right to be heard - Protection of personal data - Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

(2023/C 261/41)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: TC (represented by: D. Aukštuolytė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and S. Toliušis, Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 March 2021 declaring a debt owed by him in the amount of EUR 78 838,21 unduly paid in the form of parliamentary assistance expenses and ordering its recovery and, second, of the debit note No 7010000523 of 31 March 2021.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Vallegre v EUIPO — Joseph Phelps Vineyards (PORTO INSÍGNIA)

(Case T-33/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA - Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA (Sabrosa, Portugal) (represented by: E. Armero Lavie, G. Marín Raigal and J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC (Saint Helena, California, United States) (represented by: S. Reinhard, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 October 2021 (Case R 894/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET)

(Case T-47/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark THE PLANET - Earlier EU figurative mark PLANÈTE + - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 261/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DDR Kultur UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Yeboah, lawyer)

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

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 of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 November 2021 (Case R 2385/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND)

(Case T-63/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BROOKS ENGLAND - Earlier EU word mark BROOKS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brooks England Ltd (Smethwick, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Feltrinelli and K. Manhaeve, lawyers)

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

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 22 November 2021 (Case R 2432/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Roxtec and Wallmax v EUIPO — Wallmax and Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)

(Joined Cases T-218/22 and 219/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative trade mark representing a blue square containing eight concentric black circles - absolute ground of invalidity - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-218/22: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-219/22: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and G. Rapaccini, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court in Case T-218/22: Wallmax (Milan) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and C. Rapaccini, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-219/22: Roxtec (Karlskrona) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Re:

By their actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant in Case T-218/22 and the applicant in Case T-219/22 seek annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 1093/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

Judgement of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Chocolates Lacasa Internacional v EUIPO — Esquitino Madrid (Conguitos)

(Case T-339/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Conguitos - Earlier EU word mark Conguitos - 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) - Relative ground for invalidity - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/46)

Language of the procedure: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chocolates Lacasa Internacional, SA (Utebo, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, J. Vicente Martínez and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mariano Esquitino Madrid (Elche, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and F. Ortega Sánchez, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2022 (Case R 601/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cassa Centrale v EUIPO — Bankia (BANQUÌ)

(Case T-368/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BANQUÌ - Earlier EU figurative mark Bankia - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Distinctive character of the earlier mark)

(2023/C 261/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano SpA (Trente, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer, G. Locurto and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bankia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 April 2022 (Case R 1318/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.8.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)

(Case T-519/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Procedure for the revocation of decisions or the cancellation of entries - Revocation of a decision containing an obvious error attributable to EUIPO - Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No obvious error)

(2023/C 261/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht, and A.-C. Salger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: European Food SA (Păntășești, Romania) (represented by I. Speciac, lawyer)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 June 2022 (Case R 894/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 398, 17.10.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Sanity Group v EUIPO — AC Marca Brands (Sanity Group)

(Case T-541/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Sanity Group - Earlier EU figurative mark SANYTOL - Relative ground for refusal - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 261/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanity Group GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and V. Wolf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: AC Marca Brands, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza and J.C. Quero Navarro, lawyers)

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 22 June 2022 (Case R 2107/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 408, 24.10.2022.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — BRM Extremities (BIOPLAN)

(Case T-543/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BIOPLAN - Earlier national word mark BIOPLAK - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 261/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, 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: BRM Extremities Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 6 June 2022 (Case R 2147/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 408, 24.10.2022.

Action brought on 26 April 2023 — WS v EUIPO

(Case T-221/23)

(2023/C 261/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WS (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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 (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016, L 116, p. 1).

Action brought on 3 May 2023 — LW v Commission

(Case T-232/23)

(2023/C 261/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LW (represented by: S. Birenbaum-De Guchteneere and M. Tournay, 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.

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Acampora and Others v Commission

(Case T-261/23)

(2023/C 261/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Acampora (Naples, Italy) and 172 others (represented by: E. Iorio, lawyer)

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 applicants rely on three pleas in law.

(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Hexal v Commission

(Case T-299/23)

(2023/C 261/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hexal AG (Holzkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Meier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action, which is directed against Commission Implementing Decision [C(2023) 3067 final] of 2 May 2023 amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014) 601 final for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use, relies on two pleas in law.

By its first plea, the applicant submits that there has been a clear infringement of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) because the authorisation in respect of the new therapeutic indication of Tecfidera was not obtained during the first eight years after the granting of authorisation, but only at a later point in time.

By its second plea, the applicant submits that there has been a manifest error of assessment in the interpretation of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in joined cases C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P (2) and, as a result, the Commission has erred in law in concluding that Tecfidera does not belong to the global marketing authorisation of Fumaderm.

(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)  Judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma, C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213.

Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Red Bull and Others v Commission

(Case T-306/23)

(2023/C 261/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria), Red Bull France SASU (Paris, France), Red Bull Nederland BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Wollmann, F. Urlesberger, J. Schindler and F. Dethmers, 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 applicants rely on five pleas in law.

Action brought on 5 June 2023 — Aliud Pharma v Commission

(Case T-309/23)

(2023/C 261/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aliud Pharma GmbH (Laichingen, Germany) (represented by: P. von Czettritz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action, which is brought against Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the European Commission Implementing Decision of 2 May 2023 [C(2023)3067 (final)] amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601 (final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use, is based on two pleas in law.

(1)  Judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma, C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Union 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).

Action brought on 7 June 2023 — Naturgy Energy Group v EUIPO — Global Power Service (gps global power service)

(Case T-312/23)

(2023/C 261/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Naturgy Energy Group, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Power Service SpA (Verona, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark gps global power service — Application for registration No 18 001 007

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2023 in Case R 505/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 8 June 2023 — Adeva v EUIPO — Sideme (MAISON CAVIST.)

(Case T-313/23)

(2023/C 261/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Adeva (Mitry-Mory, France) (represented by: S. Drillon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Industrielle d’Equipement Moderne SA (Sideme) (Levallois-Perret, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark MAISON CAVIST. — EU trade mark No 18 293 519

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2023 in Case R 1623/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 8 June 2023 — Tiendanimal v EUIPO (CRIADORES)

(Case T-314/23)

(2023/C 261/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Tiendanimal Comercio Electronico de Articulos para Mascotas, SL (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative trade mark ‘CRIADORES’ — Application No 18 186 334

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2023 in Case R 798/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 9 June 2023 — Pfriem v EUIPO — U-Control (UC)

(Case T-316/23)

(2023/C 261/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hanns Pfriem (Schweinfurt, Germany) (represented by: M. Pütz-Poulalion, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: U-Control Srl (Torrile, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark UC — International registration designating the European Union No 1 569 179

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2023 in Case R 1404/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Action brought on 12 June 2023 — J&B v EUIPO — Ergün (J&B BRO)

(Case T-318/23)

(2023/C 261/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: J&B Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Thomas and B. Reiter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Engin Ergün (Solingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark J&B BRO — Application No 18 310 846

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2023 in Case R 2012/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 12 June 2023 — The Not Company v EUIPO (NOT MILK)

(Case T-320/23)

(2023/C 261/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The Not Company SpA (Santiago, Chile) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, J. Rodríguez-Fuensalida y Carnicero, P. Ramells Higueras, A. Figuerola Moure and P. Muñoz Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark NOT MILK — Application for registration No 18 508 169

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2023 in Case R 2233/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Action brought on 12 June 2023 — VN v Commission

(Case T-322/23)

(2023/C 261/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VN (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, 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 two pleas in law.

Action brought on 13 June 2023 — J. García Carrión v EUIPO — Calipso (LimoLife)

(Case T-324/23)

(2023/C 261/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: J. García Carrión, SA (Jumilla, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Calipso SRL (Afumati, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark LimoLife — Application for registration No 18 352 014

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2023 in Case R 1258/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

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

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2023 — QZ v EIB

(Case T-569/22) (1)

(2023/C 261/65)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 451, 28.11.2022.

Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-302/22

( Official Journal of the European Union C 276 of 18 July 2022 )

(2023/C 261/66)

The notice in the Official Journal in Case T-302/22, Vinokurov v Council should read as follows:

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine(OJ 2022 L 80, p. 31).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 1).