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

(2020/C 320/01)

Last publication

OJ C 313, 21.9.2020

Past publications

OJ C 304, 14.9.2020

OJ C 297, 7.9.2020

OJ C 287, 31.8.2020

OJ C 279, 24.8.2020

OJ C 271, 17.8.2020

OJ C 262, 10.8.2020

These texts are available on:

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

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Luxaviation SA v Ministre de l’Environnement

(Case C-113/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Penalty for excess emissions - No exculpatory cause in the event of actual holding of non-surrendered allowances, unless force majeure - No possibility of varying the amount of the penalty - Proportionality - Articles 20, 41, 47 and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

(2020/C 320/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luxaviation SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Environnement

Operative part of the order

1.

Articles 20 and 47 and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding there being no possibility for the flat-rate penalty provided for in Article 16(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, to be varied by a national court.

2.

Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not applying to the issue of whether it is obligatory for Member States, and not merely optional for them, to introduce warning, reminder and advance-surrender mechanisms allowing operators acting in good faith to be fully informed of their surrender obligation and thus not to run any risk of a penalty under Article 16(3) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Directive 2009/29.

3.

The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition of the penalty provided for in Article 16(3) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Directive 2009/29, in a situation where the competent authorities did not warn the operator prior to the expiry of the time limit for surrender, whereas they had done so, without being obliged to, the previous year.

4.

It is for the referring court to assess whether the concept of ‘circumstances constituting force majeure’, within the meaning of paragraph 31 of the judgment of 17 October 2013, Billerud Karlsborg and Billerud Skärblacka (C-203/12, EU:C:2013:664), applies to a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Regione Veneto v HD

(Case C-468/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Historical vehicles - Non-uniform tax treatment within a Member State - Purely internal situation - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 320/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale per il Veneto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Regione Veneto

Defendant: HD

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria regionale del Veneto (Regional Tax Court for Veneto, Italy), by decision of 10 June 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli — Italy) — TJ v Balga Srl

(Case C-32/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal - Articles 20, 21, 34 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Directive 98/59/EC - Collective dismissal - National legislation on the protection to be afforded to a worker who has been the subject of unjustified collective dismissal on account of a violation of the criteria for selecting the workers to be dismissed - Absence of a situation regarding the implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Inapplicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2020/C 320/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di appello di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TJ

Defendant: Balga Srl

Operative part of the order

The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Corte d’appello di Napoli (Court of Appeal, Naples, Italy) by decision of 18 September 2019.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

Appeal brought on 8 April 2020 by WV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 29 January 2020 in Case T-471/18, WV v EEAS

(Case C-162/20 P)

(2020/C 320/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

Set aside the order of 29 January 2020 of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-471/18, in so far as it dismissed the present appellant’s initial action for annulment as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded in law, and ordered the appellant to pay the costs;

—	Order the original defendant to pay all of the costs, including the costs before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

—	Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order for it to rule on the action.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that, in issuing the order under appeal, the General Court failed to have regard to the principle of unfettered evaluation of evidence and the concept of a body of consistent evidence and, therefore, failed to have regard to the rules relating to the burden of proof, in particular as regards the proof and evidence submitted by the appellant concerning the alleged infringement of Articles 1e and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

The single ground of appeal raised by the appellant also alleges a denial of justice, discrimination, distortion of the facts by the order under appeal and manifest errors of assessment made by the General Court resulting in imprecise legal reasoning.

Appeal brought on 8 April 2020 by WV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 29 January 2020 in Case T-43/19, WV v EEAS

(Case C-171/20 P)

(2020/C 320/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	Set aside the order of 29 January 2020 of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-43/19, in so far as it dismissed the action as inadmissible and ordered the present appellant to pay the costs;

—	Order the original defendant to pay all of the costs, including the costs incurred before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

—	Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order for it to rule on the action.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that, in issuing the order under appeal, the General Court failed to have regard to the principle of unfettered evaluation of evidence and the concept of a body of consistent evidence and, therefore, failed to have regard to the rules relating to the burden of proof, in particular as regards the arguments and evidence submitted concerning the legal nature of the claim for damages lodged by the appellant with the EEAS pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

The single ground of appeal raised by the appellant also alleges discrimination, distortion of the facts by the order under appeal and manifest errors of assessment made by the General Court resulting in imprecise legal reasoning.

Appeal brought on 8 April 2020 by WV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 29 January 2020 in Case T-388/18, WV v EEAS

(Case C-172/20 P)

(2020/C 320/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	Set aside the order of 29 January 2020 of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-388/18, in so far as it dismissed the present appellant’s initial action for annulment as inadmissible and ordered the appellant to pay the costs;

—	Order the original defendant to pay all of the costs, including the costs incurred before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

—	Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order for it to rule on the action.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that, in issuing the order under appeal, the General Court failed to have regard to the principle of unfettered evaluation of evidence and the concept of a body of consistent evidence and, therefore, failed to have regard to the rules relating to the burden of proof, in particular as regards the arguments and evidence submitted concerning the calculation of the time available to the appellant for the purposes of contesting the decision of the EEAS.

The single ground of appeal raised by the appellant also alleges discrimination, distortion of the facts by the order under appeal and manifest errors of assessment made by the General Court resulting in imprecise legal reasoning.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 8 June 2020 — F.C.I. v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-244/20)

(2020/C 320/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: F.C.I.

Respondent: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 3(2) of Directive 79/7 of [19] December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, (1) which does not apply to survivors’ benefits or family benefits, be declared invalid or treated as such on the ground that it is contrary to a fundamental principle of European Union law, namely equality between men and women, which is declared a founding principle of the European Union in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and a fundamental right in Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and also in the long-established and settled case-law of the Court of Justice?

2.

Must Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted, in the light of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, as precluding a national measure such as that under consideration in the main proceedings (which was prompted by Constitutional Court judgment No 40/2014 of 11 March 2014, the ensuing national case-law and the legislative amendments that implemented the judgment) which — in practice, given the general lack of awareness of the need for formalisation and the absence of any transition period for complying with the requirement — initially prevented members of de facto partnerships governed by the Código Civil Catalán (Catalan Civil Code) from obtaining a survivor’s pension, and has subsequently made it extremely difficult for them to access this benefit?

3.

Must the fundamental principle of European Union law of equality between men and women, which is included as a founding value in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union, and the prohibition of discrimination on ground of sex, which is recognised as a fundamental right in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, be interpreted as precluding a national measure such as that under consideration in the main proceedings (which was prompted by Constitutional Court judgment No 40/2014 of 11 March 2014, the ensuing national case-law and the legislative amendments that implemented the judgment) which — in practice, given the general lack of awareness of the need for formalisation and the absence of any transition period for complying with the requirement — initially prevented members of de facto partnerships governed by the Catalan Civil Code from obtaining a survivor’s pension, and has subsequently made it extremely difficult for them to access this benefit, to the disadvantage of a far greater percentage of women than men?

4.

Must the prohibition on grounds of ‘birth’ or, alternatively of ‘membership of a national minority’ as reasons or ‘grounds’ for discrimination prohibited by Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, be interpreted as precluding a national measure such as that under consideration in the main proceedings (which was prompted by Constitutional Court judgment No 40/2014 of 11 March 2014, the ensuing national case-law and the legislative amendments that implemented the judgment) which — in practice, given the general lack of awareness of the need for formalisation and the absence of any transition period for complying with the requirement — initially prevented members of de facto partnerships governed by the Catalan Civil Code from obtaining a survivor’s pension, and has subsequently made it extremely difficult for them to access this benefit?

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 June 2020 — HV v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-258/20)

(2020/C 320/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HV

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Question referred

Is Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, like that at issue in the main proceedings (Article 60(4) TRLGSS), which provides that women who have had at least two biological or adopted children and are recipients of contributory retirement pensions are entitled to a pension supplement, whereas other women who are in identical circumstances and who, as a result of the fact that they are women, are faced with identical difficulties as regards remaining in the employment market, are not entitled to such a retirement pension supplement because they have taken voluntary early retirement which, by law, is subject to greater contribution conditions than an ordinary pension and identical or very similar age conditions?

---

(1)  OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de León (Spain) lodged on 15 June 2020 — AB Volvo and DAF TRUCKS N.V. v RM

(Case C-267/20)

(2020/C 320/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de León

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AB Volvo and DAF TRUCKS N.V.

Respondent: RM

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 101 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which neither the 5-year limitation period established in Article 10 of Directive 2014/104/EU nor Article 17 thereof, concerning judicial estimation of harm, is retroactively applicable, and which establishes retroactive effect by reference to the date of the penalty rather than the date on which the action is brought?

2.

Must Article 22(2) of Directive 2014/104 (1) and the term ‘retroactively’ be interpreted as meaning that Article 10 of the directive is applicable to a claim such as that brought in the main proceedings, which, although lodged after the directive and the transposing legislation entered into force, refers to prior facts or penalties?

3.

When applying a provision such as that of Article 76 of the Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the Protection of Competition), must Article 17 of Directive 2014/104, concerning judicial estimation of harm, be interpreted as a procedural provision that will apply to main proceedings in which an action is brought after the entry into force of the national transposing legislation?

---

(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 Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 16 June 2020 — XV v Cajamar Caja Rural S.C.C.

(Case C-268/20)

(2020/C 320/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: XV

Defendant and other party: Cajamar Caja Rural S.C.C.

Questions referred

1.

In terms of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, is the following ruling compliant with EU law in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant Community case-law: the ruling by the Supreme Court in judgments 44 to 49 of 23 January 2019, which establishes the unambiguous criterion that a term in a consumer mortgage loan agreement that has not been negotiated and that stipulates that all the costs of arranging the mortgage are to be borne by the borrower is unfair, and which apportions the various expenses that are involved in the unfair term found to be void between the bank that imposed the term and the borrower, in order to limit repayments of amounts wrongly paid under national legislation? And, in terms of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant Community case-law, is it compliant with EU law for the Supreme Court to adopt an inclusive interpretation of a term that is void for unfairness if the term can be severed and its effects abolished without affecting the continued existence of the mortgage loan agreement?

2.

Also, as regards Article 394 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure), which establishes the principle that the costs of proceedings are to be borne by the unsuccessful party, can it be held that where an unfair expenses clause is declared void but the effects of voiding the term are limited to apportioning the expenses in question, it is contrary to the EU legal principles of effectiveness and the non-binding nature of unfair terms to conclude that a claim has been upheld in part, and could such a conclusion be interpreted as producing an inverse deterrent effect, which thus fails to protect the legitimate interests of consumers and users?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Ferimet S.L. v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-281/20)

(2020/C 320/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferimet S.L.

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 168 and related provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) the principle of tax neutrality arising from that directive, and the associated case-law of the Court of Justice be interpreted as not allowing a trader to deduct input VAT where, under the reverse charging of VAT, known in EU law as the reverse charge procedure, the documentary evidence (invoice) issued by that trader for the goods he or she has purchased states a fictitious supplier, although it is not disputed that the trader in question did actually make the purchase and used the purchased materials in the course of his or her trade or business?

2.

In the event that a practice such as that described above — of which the interested party must have been aware — can be characterised as abusive or fraudulent for the purposes of refusing the deduction of input VAT, is it necessary, in order for the deduction to be refused, to prove in full the existence of a tax advantage that is incompatible with the guiding objectives of ‘VAT regulation?’

3.

Lastly, if such proof is required, must the tax advantage which would be grounds for refusing the deduction and which must be identified in the specific case in question relate exclusively to the taxpayer (who purchased the goods), or could that advantage be one which relates to other parties involved in the transaction?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 1 July 2020 — GE Auto Service Leasing GMBH v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central

(Case C-294/20)

(2020/C 320/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE Auto Service Leasing GMBH

Defendant: Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central

Questions referred

1.

Must it be accepted as lawful for a taxable person, following repeated requests from the tax authority that it establish compliance with the conditions for entitlement to a refund, to fail to comply with those requests without any reasonable justification and, after it has been refused a refund, for that person to defer the submission of documents until the review procedure or legal action?

2.

Can a situation where a taxable person does not provide the tax authority with the necessary information on which it bases its right when it has been permitted and formally required to do so, and that taxable person fails to provide that information without reasonable justification and the information is instead submitted voluntarily at a later date to a review body or a court, be regarded as an abuse of rights?

3.

Does a non-established taxable person, either on the ground that it failed to submit the relevant information for establishing its right to a refund on time and without reasonable justification, or on the ground that it engaged in abusive practices, lose its right to a refund once the period stipulated or granted for that purpose has elapsed and the tax authority has issued a decision refusing the refund?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2020 — UW v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-346/20)

(2020/C 320/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UW

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a long delay of a flight can also be ‘caused’ by extraordinary circumstances where those circumstances occurred the previous day on an earlier flight made by the scheduled aircraft?

By decision of the Court of Justice of 6 August 2020, the case was removed from the Court’s register.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 31 July 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against L, Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

(Case C-354/20)

(2020/C 320/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

European arrest warrant issued against: L

Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

Questions referred

1.

Do Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) the second paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU and/or the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter indeed preclude the executing judicial authority from executing an EAW issued by a court where the national legislation of the issuing Member State has been amended after that EAW was issued such that the court no longer meets the requirements of effective or actual judicial protection since that legislation no longer guarantees the independence of that court?

2.

Do Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter indeed preclude the executing judicial authority from executing an EAW when it has established that there is a real risk in the issuing Member State of breach of the fundamental right to an independent tribunal for any suspected person — and thus also for the requested person — irrespective of which courts of that Member State have jurisdiction over the proceedings to which the requested person will be subject and irrespective of the requested person’s personal situation, the nature of the offence for which he is being prosecuted and the factual context that forms the basis of the EAW, where that real risk is connected with the fact that the courts of the issuing Member State are no longer independent on account of systemic and generalised deficiencies?

3.

Do Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter indeed preclude the executing judicial authority from executing an EAW when it has established that: — there is a real risk in the issuing Member State of breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial for any suspected person, where that risk is connected with systemic and generalised deficiencies relating to the independence of that Member State’s judiciary, — those systemic and generalised deficiencies are therefore not only liable to have negative consequences, but actually do have such consequences for the courts of that Member State with jurisdiction over the proceedings to which the requested person will be subject, and — there are therefore serious and factual grounds to believe that the requested person runs a real risk of breach of his fundamental right to an independent tribunal and, therefore, of the essence of his fundamental right to a fair trial, even if, aside from those systemic and generalised deficiencies, the requested person has not expressed any specific concerns, and even if the requested person’s personal situation, the nature of the offences for which he is being prosecuted and the context that forms the basis of the EAW, aside from those systemic and generalised deficiencies, do not give rise to fears that the executive and/or legislature will exert concrete pressure on or influence his trial?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 31 July 2020 by Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 May 2020 in Case T-195/18 Talanton AE v European Commission

(Case C-359/20 P)

(2020/C 320/16)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis, M. Angelopoulos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020 in Case T-195/18 Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission;

—	uphold the action brought by the applicant/appellant on 16 March 2018;

—	dismiss the counterclaim of the defendant/respondent;

—	order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

(1)

Error in law — Incorrect application of the principle of good faith in performance of the contract at issue and breach of the requirement of legal certainty which requires the EU institutions to exercise their powers within a reasonable time. — Under the first part of the abovementioned ground, the appellant complains that the General Court misinterpreted the content of the principle that action is to be taken within a reasonable time, failing to take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case. — By the second part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant asserts that both the duration of the procedure and the positions adopted by the Commission during the procedure gave it the legitimate expectation that financial corrections would not be imposed upon it.

(2)

Error in law — Incorrect application of the principle of good faith as regards acceptance of the breach of the provisions regarding subcontracting in the carrying out of the audit by the Commission. — The General Court erred in law and misapplied Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, as interpreted by the Belgian Court of Cassation.

Appeal brought on 4 August 2020 by Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 14 May 2020 in Case T-282/18, Bernis and Others v SRB

(Case C-364/20 P)

(2020/C 320/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (represented by: O.H. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB), European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the order of the General Court;

—	declare that the application for annulment is admissible;

—	refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment;

—	order the ECB to pay the appellants’ costs and the costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on the following pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in relying on the fact that Regulation No 806/2014 (1) makes no provisions, in circumstances such as those of the present case, for the winding up of a credit institution. The appellants argue that this aspect concerns the legality of the SRB’s contested decisions of 23 February 2018 and thus the merits whereas the admissibility solely depends on the manner in which the SRB actually acted (not how it should have acted).

Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in treating it as a consideration supporting its conclusion of inadmissibility that the Luxembourg court rejected the Luxembourg NRA’s application for the dissolution and winding up of ABLV Luxembourg. The rejection of a decision of a European institution by a national court does not render that decision non-existent and does not eliminate the need for an annulment by the European courts.

Third plea in law alleging that the General Court erred in law in assuming that the voluntary nature of the liquidation of ABLV Bank as a matter of Latvian law is relevant if, as the General Court confirms, the liquidation was mandated by the SRB’s decisions.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law by assuming that a sufficiently direct legal effect is excluded because of the fact that the implementation of the contested decisions involves the application of national law. The application of national law in the context of the implementation is irrelevant as long as the purported legal effect of the act is governed by European law.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in holding that the jurisdiction-specific nature of the implementation of the act is relevant pursuant to Article 263 TFEU.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law by assuming that any discretion of the national authorities in the context of the implementation excludes the direct legal effect.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the General Court relied on an incorrect understanding of the concept of ‘intermediate rules’ as developed in case law.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the General Court drew incorrect conclusions from the mere form of the contested acts.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in failing to apply Article 263 TFEU in the light of the specific guidance provided in Regulation No 806/2014 as to the reviewability of acts of the SRB.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law by failing to take into account the appellants’ rights pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union and created a gap in the legal protection.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging as a precaution that the order under appeal would be based on a manifest distortion of the contested acts if it was interpreted as holding that the contested acts did not mandate the liquidation of ABLV Latvia and ABLV Luxembourg. This plea is submitted merely as a precaution. The appellants do not believe that there is any basis for interpreting the order under appeal in this manner.

Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal is based on an incorrect interpretation of relevant case law, including the decisions of the Court of Justice in Trasta Komercbanka and Others v ECB (C-663/17) and Deutsche Post and Germany v Commission (C-463/10).

Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal is insufficiently reasoned.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 225, p. 1).

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, supported by: French Republic

(Case C-164/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, supported by: French Republic

(Case C-165/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — La Gazza Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-217/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/20)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Latte Più Srl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-218/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/21)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Brenta Scrl and Others v genzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-219/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/22)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 15 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería — Spain) — Liliana Beatriz Moya Privitello, Sergio Daniel Martín Durán v Cajas Rurales Unidas, Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito

(Case C-283/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Via Lattea Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-337/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/24)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Cooperativa Novalat Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-338/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/25)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Veneto Latte Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-339/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/26)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2020 — Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Núcleo de comunicaciones y control SL

(Case C-534/18 P) (1)

(2020/C 320/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 21 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — XW v Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz

(Case C-536/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/28)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central — Spain) — Ente Público Radio Televisión Madrid (C-694/18), Agencia Pública Empresarial de la Radio y Televisión de Andalucía (RTVA) (C-695/18), Radiotelevisión del Principado de Asturias S.A.U. (C-696/18), Ente Público de Radiotelevisión de Castilla La Mancha (C-697/18) v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT)

(Joined Cases C-694/18 to C-697/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 28 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana — Italy) — FW, GY v U.T.G. — Prefettura di Lucca

(Case C-726/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/30)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance Epinal — France) — Cofidis v YP

(Case C-782/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/31)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság) — Hungary) — EY v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, anciennement Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-40/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/32)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 25 February 2020 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-305/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/33)

Language of the case: Czech

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

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — R.C.C. v M.O.L.

(Case C-314/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 24 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Frontline Digital GmbH

(Case C-438/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/35)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Latte Villafranca Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-464/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/36)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 12 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta — Spain) — DC v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

(Case C-522/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules — Spain) — Investcapital Ltd v FE

(Case C-524/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — GF v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

(Case C-525/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/39)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 3 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankenthal — Germany) — OK v Daimler AG

(Case C-685/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/40)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Ryanair Ltd v PJ

(Case C-687/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/41)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 18 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gera — Germany) — PG v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-759/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/42)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie — Poland) — D.S. (C-763/19) v S.P. and Others, interested party: Prokurator Regionalny w Krakowie, C. S.A. w P. (C-764/19) v Administrator in the insolvency of I.T. in O. in liquidation, interested party: Prokurator Regionalny w Krakowie, M.Ś. and I.Ś. (C-765/19) v R.B.P. a limited company with its registered office in W, interested party: Prokurator Regionalny w Krakowie, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

(Joined Cases C-763/19 to C-765/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/43)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Koch Media GmbH v HC

(Case C-785/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/44)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 12 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — TUIfly GmbH v EUflight.de GmbH

(Case C-792/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/45)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — B-GmbH v Finanzamt D

(Case C-797/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/46)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — CT v VINI GmbH

(Case C-805/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/47)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) — United Kingdom) — AC, TM, GM, MM v ABC Sl, XYZ Plc

(Case C-814/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/48)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — QF v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-816/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/49)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 26 de Barcelona — Spain) — LJ v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-861/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — VZ v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-880/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/51)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — GDVI Verbraucherhilfe GmbH v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-918/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/52)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-10/20) (1)

(2020/C 320/53)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

Action brought on 16 August 2020– JT v EUIPO — Carrasco Pirard and Others (QUILAPAYÚN)

(Case T-197/20)

(2020/C 320/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: JT (represented by: A. Mena Valenzuela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo Carrasco Pirard and seven others (Santiago de Chile, Chile)

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 the EU figurative trade mark QUILAPAYÚN — Application for registration No 9 267 287

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 in Case R 1518/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Annul or revoke the contested decision, upholding all claims in favour of that party.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 6a(1a) of the Paris Convention.

Action brought on 31 July 2020 — Tecnica Group v EUIPO — Zeitneu (Shape of a boot)

(Case T-483/20)

(2020/C 320/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tecnica Group SpA (Giavera del Montello, Italy) (represented by: C. Sala, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zeitneu GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a boot) — European Union trade mark No 10 168 441

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2020 in Case R 1093/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of the principle of res judicata under Articles 123 and 124 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of the principles of legality, equal treatment and sound administration under Articles 123 and 124 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations under Articles 123 and 124 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 127 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

Action brought on 3 August 2020 — H&H v EUIPO — Giuliani (Swisse)

(Case T-486/20)

(2020/C 320/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Health and Happiness (H&H) Hong Kong Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: D. Rose, L. Flascher, Solicitors and N. Saunders, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giuliani SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Swisse in the colours red, black and white — European Union trade mark No 3 252 152

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2020 in Case R 2185/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Articles 63(2) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

—	Infringement of Article 146(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick)

(Case T-488/20)

(2020/C 320/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Guerlain (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU tridimensional mark (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick) — Application for registration No 17 958 667

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 in Case R 2292/2019-1

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Koc (SFORA WEAR)

(Case T-493/20)

(2020/C 320/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andrzej Koc (Kobyłka, Poland)

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 the EU word mark SFORA WEAR — Application for registration No 15 853 245

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 2030/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 2 834 862, granting in part the EU trade mark No 15 853 245 SFORA WEAR (word), to distinguish specific goods in Classes 18 and 25;

—	order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Inadequate assessment of the evidence of use of the opposing mark, and infringement of Article 10(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and breach of the classification criteria laid down in the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 (in its most recent version), together with the Explanatory Notes and Class Analysis prepared by WIPO.

Action brought on 10 August 2020 — Makk v EUIPO — Ubati Luxury Cosmetics (PANTA RHEI)

(Case T-501/20)

(2020/C 320/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stefan Makk (Graz, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ubati Luxury Cosmetics, SL (Alcobendas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark PANTA RHEI — International registration designating the European Union No 1 393 404

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 in Case R 2337/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and eventually the intervener to pay the costs incurred with the present proceeding before the Court.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu)

(Case T-504/20)

(2020/C 320/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Soapland GmbH & Co. OHG (Andernach, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Manòu — Application for registration No 14 704 481

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 1504/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Guo v EUIPO — Sand Cph (sandriver)

(Case T-505/20)

(2020/C 320/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xiuling Guo (Shanyang Town, China) (represented by: L. Le Stanc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sand Cph A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark sandriver — European Union trade mark No 15 856 297

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 in Case R 2019/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare admissible the action brought against the contested decision;

—	annul the contested decision in its entirety;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

—

Infringement of Articles 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by finding that there was a likelihood of confusion for the public between the earlier European Union word mark No 3 105 491 and the applicant’s later semi-figurative European Union trade mark No 15 856 297.

Action brought on 14 August 2020 — Daimler v Commission

(Case T-509/20)

(2020/C 320/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Wimmer, C. Arhold and G. Ollinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision adopted by the defendant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) in particular under the second subparagraph of Article 8(5), in so far as Article 1(1) of the decision in conjunction with Tables 1 and 2 in Annex I shows the average specific emissions of CO2 and the CO2 savings from eco-innovations for the applicant in columns D and I, respectively;

—	stay the present proceedings pending a final decision closing the proceedings in Case T-359/19; and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1035 of 3 June 2020 confirming or amending the provisional calculation of the average specific emissions of CO2 and specific emissions targets for manufacturers of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles for the calendar year 2018 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2)

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 (3) and Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. (4) The defendant infringed those provisions in its decision by omitting the required specific preconditioning from the testing methodology it used for its ad-hoc review. — The Commission set out a specific testing methodology in Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158. In recital 10 of that decision, the Commission implicitly states that that testing methodology requires specific preconditioning. — Without specific preconditioning, it is not possible to provide results that are verifiable, repeatable and comparable, contrary to the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. — Carrying out a test procedure without specific preconditioning also means that it is not possible to demonstrate in a realistic manner and with strong statistical significance the CO2 emissions benefits of the innovative technology, contrary to the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. — Furthermore, without specific preconditioning there is no sufficient reference to the ‘regulatory test procedures’ of the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) or of the Worldwide harmonised Light-duty vehicle Test Procedures (WLTP), governed by Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (5) or Regulation (EU) 2017/1151. (6) However, according to the spirit and purpose of the test procedure and to recital 9 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, the relevant test procedure should follow the ‘regulatory test procedures’, which is therefore also why — in accordance with the approach of those test procedures — specific preconditioning would have been necessary.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. — Furthermore, the defendant infringed Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 by declaring that the eco-innovations not be taken into account for 2018, notwithstanding that that provision expressly permits a decision not to take them into account only for the following calendar year.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. — The defendant did not hear the applicant in accordance with the requirements of the general legal principle of observance of the rights of the defence or the requirements of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons. — The defendant moreover did not state the reasons for the decision, in accordance with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It refers in the contested decision only in abstract terms to deviations in the testing method. It does not comment on the issue relevant to the decision of whether and in what way the testing methodology requires specific preconditioning and whether the defendant approved such a testing methodology in Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2020 L 227, p. 37.

(3)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 of 30 January 2015 on the approval of two Robert Bosch GmbH high efficient alternators as the innovative technologies for reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 31).

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 of 25 July 2011 establishing a procedure for the approval and certification of innovative technologies for reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 19).

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 2008 L 199, p. 1).

(6)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 of 1 June 2017 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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, amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (OJ 2017 L 175, p. 1).

Action brought on 12 August 2020 — Zardini v Commission

(Case T-511/20)

(2020/C 320/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Zardini (Marano di Valpollicella, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of 20 June 2019 by which the applicant was excluded from taking part in the tests at the Assessment Centre for Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

—	annul the decision of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for review of the exclusion from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

—	annul the decision of the appointing authority of 7 May 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Cases T-456/20, LA v Commission, and T-474/20, LD v Commission.

Action brought on 14 August 2020 — Asempre v Commission

(Case T-513/20)

(2020/C 320/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia (Asempre) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Piqueras Ruiz, I. Igartua Arregui and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul European Commission Decision C (2020) 3108 final of 14 May 2020, concerning State aid SA.50872 (2020/NN) — Compensation to Correos under the universal service obligation, 2011-2020; and, consequently,

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against European Commission Decision C(2020) 3108 final, of 14 May 2020, concerning State Aid SA.50872 (2020/NN) — Compensation to Correos under the universal service obligation, 2011-2020, by which the Commission decided, inter alia, that the public service compensation paid to Correos during the period 2011-2020 was unlawful State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, which is, however, compatible with the internal market, in accordance with Article 106(2) TFEU.

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. — The applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that part of the compensation paid by the State during the period analysed should be attributed to the period before 2011, and specifically to the period from 2007 to 2010. Although the Commission seeks to argue that the budget reference line corresponds to the supply of a universal public service by Correos in the years 2008, 2009 or 2010, and that accordingly it must be considered to be aid attributable to those periods, which should have been set out in the budget code preceded by the years ‘2007’, ‘2008’, ‘2009’ or ‘2010’, respectively, that was not, however, what occurred. On the contrary, the budget reference lines were identified as 2011 1701 491N 441 and 2013 1703 491N 442. That means that those budget reference lines were attributed to a service carried out and assessed during that annual period, and not during another annual period.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 22 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1997 L 15, p. 14). — In that regard, the applicant submits that the cost of administrative notifications during the period concerned could not be the subject of State compensation, since that State compensation is unlawful and incompatible aid that the Commission had not, however, taken into account in the contested decision. The Commission takes completely the opposite position to that adopted by the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y de la Competencia (National Markets and Competition Commission) by including the cost of administrative notifications in the universal service obligations and in thus considering that that cost may be lawfully compensated by state contributions. As it is, the Commission infringed its duty to observe procedural safeguards which should guide the application of Article 107 TFEU by disregarding the position adopted by the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y de la Competencia (National Markets and Competition Commission) in its capacity as the regulatory authority for the postal sector.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 107 TFEU. — In that regard, the applicant states that the Commission should not have excluded from the aid calculation in the present case the amounts exempted from the tax on real estate and business tax.