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

(2020/C 329/01)

Last publication

OJ C 320, 28.9.2020

Past publications

OJ C 313, 21.9.2020

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

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — European Commission v Danilo Di Bernardo

(Case C-114/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Open competition - Non-admission to tests - Possible for the administration to supplement before the Court the statement of reasons for the decision not to admit - Conditions - Exceptional cases - Concept of ‘absence of a statement of reasons’)

(2020/C 329/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Danilo Di Bernardo (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — proceedings brought by S.A.D. Maler und Anstreicher OG

(Case C-256/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Effective judicial protection in the areas covered by EU law - Principle of judicial independence - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 267 TFEU - Admissibility - National provisions relating to the allocation of cases in a court or tribunal - Remedy - Interpretation necessary to enable the referring court to give judgment - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 329/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

S.A.D. Maler und Anstreicher OG

Intervening parties: Magistrat der Stadt Wien, Bauarbeiter Urlaubs- und Abfertigungskasse

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Vienna Administrative Court, Austria), by decision of 27 February 2019, is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 5 May 2020 — Prima banka Slovensko, a.s. v HD

(Case C-192/20)

(2020/C 329/04)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prima banka Slovensko, a.s.

Defendant: HD

Questions referred

1.

Must Directive 93/13 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, in conjunction with the interpretation contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-96/16 and C-94/17 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:643), be interpreted as precluding legislation such as the protective framework provision contained in Paragraph 54(1) of the Občiansky zákonník (Civil Code), which does not allow the consumer’s position to be worsened by contractual terms in comparison to the statutory provision which provides for the following rights of the creditor in the event of a consumer defaulting on loan repayment: — the creditor’s right to default interest at a rate limited by a government regulation; — the creditor’s right to other penalties which the creditor may impose on the consumer and which, together with default interest, are limited to the amount of the loan principal outstanding; — the creditor’s right to compensation where the damage suffered by the creditor is higher than the default interest, that is, the creditor’s right to unlimited compensation according to the actual damage.

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: does the high level of protection of consumer rights under Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 4(2) and 169(1) TFEU preclude a consumer from paying, for his or her delay in the performance of contractual obligations, the flat rate costs of the creditor rather than the equivalent of the actual loss suffered by the creditor, even if the actual loss is lower than the flat rate costs?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 2).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 July 2020 — ‘Sanresa’ UAB v Aplinkos apsaugos departamentas prie Aplinkos ministerijos

(Case C-295/20)

(2020/C 329/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation:‘Sanresa’ UAB

Other party to the proceedings: Aplinkos apsaugos departamentas prie Aplinkos ministerijos

Questions referred

1.

Are Article 18(2), point (b) of the first subparagraph and the second subparagraph of Article 56(1), point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 58(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 58(2) of Directive 2014/24 (1) and Articles 3 to 6 and other provisions of Regulation No 1013/2006 (2) (together or separately but without limitation thereto) to be interpreted as meaning that consent issued to an economic operator, which is necessary to ship waste from one Member State of the European Union to another, is to be classified as a requirement for performance of a service contract and not a requirement concerning the right to pursue an activity?

2.

If the aforementioned consent to ship waste is to be regarded as a supplier selection criterion (suitability to pursue the professional activity), are the principles of transparency and fair competition laid down in the first and second subparagraphs of Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24, point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 58(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 58(2) of that directive, the free movement of persons, goods and services enshrined in Article 26(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 7 to 9 of Regulation No 1013/2006 (together or separately but without limitation thereto) to be interpreted and applied in such a way that conditions for the public procurement of waste management services, especially concerning closing dates for the submission of tenders, must create for domestic or foreign suppliers seeking to transport waste across the borders of the Member States of the European Union conditions enabling unrestricted participation in such procurement procedures, and they must inter alia be allowed to produce the aforementioned consent if it has been granted on a later date than the closing date for the submission of tenders?

3.

If the aforementioned consent to ship waste, in accordance with Article 49 of and point 17 of Part C of Annex V to Directive 2014/24 and Article 70 thereof, is to be regarded as a requirement for performance of a public procurement contract, should the principles of public procurement laid down in Article 18 of that directive and the general contract award procedure laid down in Article 56 thereof be interpreted as meaning that in public procurement procedures the tender of a participant who has not produced that consent may not be rejected?

4.

Are Article 18, point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 56(1), point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 58(1) and Article 58(2) of Directive 2014/24 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which contracting authorities are entitled to define in advance in public procurement documents a tender evaluation procedure under which the suppliers’ right to pursue an activity (suitability to pursue the professional activity) will be verified partially or not verified at all even though the possession of that right is a prerequisite for lawful performance of the public procurement contract and contracting authorities may be aware in advance of the need for that right?

5.

Are Article 18 and the first subparagraph of Article 42(1) of Directive 2014/24 and Articles 2(35), 5 and 17 of Regulation No 1013/2006 as well as other provisions of that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of procurement of waste management services, contracting authorities may lawfully procure such services only if they clearly and precisely define in the public procurement documents the quantity and composition of the waste and other important conditions for performing the contract (for example, packaging)?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 July 2020 — Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) S.A. v KM

(Case C-303/20)

(2020/C 329/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) S.A.

Defendant: KM

Question referred

Does the penalty of liability for a petty offence that is imposed in Article 138c(1) of the Polish Kodeks wykroczeń (Code of Petty Offences) for a failure to comply with the obligation to assess a consumer’s creditworthiness laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) constitute proper and sufficient implementation of the requirement, imposed on the Member State in Article 23 of that directive, to lay down in national law effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for a breach by the creditor of the obligation to assess the creditworthiness of a consumer?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 22 July 2020 — SIA MONO v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-326/20)

(2020/C 329/07)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant on appeal: SIA MONO

Defendant and appellant on appeal: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that excise goods intended to be used in the context of diplomatic or consular relations are to be exempted from excise duty on the condition that payment for the goods in question is to be made by non-cash means, that payment has actually been made, and that the payment to the supplier was made by the actual recipients of the goods?

2.

Must Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that Member States may lay down conditions and limitations which, in the context of diplomatic and consular relations, make the exemption from duty for excise goods subject to the requirement that the purchaser of the goods has actually paid for the goods by non-cash means?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Roma Multiservizi SpA, Rekeep SpA v Roma Capitale, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-332/20)

(2020/C 329/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Roma Multiservizi SpA, Rekeep SpA

Respondents: Roma Capitale, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Questions referred

1.

For the purposes of determining the minimum limit of 30 % participation by the private partner in a future semi-public company — the limit deemed appropriate by the Italian legislature in implementation of the principles of EU law set in relation to European case-law — is it compatible with EU law and the correct interpretation of recitals 14 and 32 and Articles 12 and 18 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) and of Article 30 of Directive 2014/23/EU, (2) with reference also to Article 107 TFEU, for consideration to be given solely to the legal form/on-paper composition of that partner or may — or in fact must — the authority launching the tender also consider its own indirect participation in the private partner submitting a bid?

2.

If the answer to the above question is yes, is it consistent and in line with the principles of EU law, and in particular with the principles of fair competition, proportionality and appropriateness, for the authority launching the tender to be able to exclude from the tender a private partner submitting a bid, where the effective participation of that private partner in the future semi-public company is in fact less than 30 %, on account of the direct or indirect public participation identified?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).

Action brought on 27 July 2020 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-345/20)

(2020/C 329/09)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:

—

declare that, in failing to carry out the interconnection of its national electronic register to the new version of the European Register of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/480 of 1 April 2016 establishing common rules concerning the interconnection of national electronic registers on road transport undertakings and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1213/2010; (1)

—	order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

The interconnection of national electronic registers to the new version of the ERRU, which the Member States are required to carry out in accordance with the procedures and technical requirements laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/480, as required under Article 3 of that regulation, was to have taken place by no later than 30 January 2019.

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 87, p. 4.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2020 — O.D., R.I.H.V., B.O., F.G., M.K.F.B., E.S., N.P. and S.E.A. v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-350/20)

(2020/C 329/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: O.D., R.I.H.V., B.O., F.G., M.K.F.B., E.S., N.P. and S.E.A.

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Question referred

Is Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000 and adjusted at Strasbourg on 12 December 2007, to be interpreted as applying to childbirth and maternity allowances under Article 3(1)(b) and (j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) referred to in Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit, (2) and is EU law therefore to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which fails to extend the abovementioned benefits, which are already granted to foreign nationals holding a long-term resident’s EU residence permit, to foreign nationals who hold a single permit under that directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

(2)  Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 7 August 2020 by Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-574/18, Agrochem-Maks v Commission

(Case C-374/20 P)

(2020/C 329/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, avocats)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal;

—	refer the case back to the General Court;

—	order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the appellant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of the procedure regarding requests for additional information in the context of the renewal of the approval of the active substance.

The General Court committed an error of law by holding that the complaint (relating to the seven non-finalised issues) that the existence of disagreements between EFSA’s assessments and that of the rapporteur Member State requires in-depth reasoning on that question must be rejected as unfounded in relation to the fourth issue and as ineffective with relation to the other issues.

The General Court committed an error of law by failing to take into account all the relevant elements in order to examine the appellant’s legitimate expectations.

The General Court erroneously qualified the facts and infringed Article 6(f) of Regulation No 1107/2009 (1), point 2.2 of Annex II to that regulation and the principle of proportionality.

The General Court committed an error of law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the precautionary principle.

---

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

Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság) — Hungary) — KD v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-67/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/12)

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 Court of 6 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — SM v Sparkasse Saarbrücken

(Case C-209/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/13)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság) — Hungary) — TN v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, formerly Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-210/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 29 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — PO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

(Case C-531/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 24 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — RQ v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

(Case C-533/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 24 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — SR v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

(Case C-534/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — DX v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

(Case C-549/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 25 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Valencia — Spain) — GT v Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

(Case C-560/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 17 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — LP v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

(Case C-567/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság) — Hungary) — NJ v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság

(Case C-740/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/21)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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 15 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gera — Germany) — DS (C-808/19), ER (C-809/19) v Volkswagen AG

(Joined Cases C-808/19 and C-809/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/22)

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 8 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — EP v Kreis Groß-Gerau

(Case C-905/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/23)

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 15 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante — Spain) — Bankia SA v SI

(Case C-31/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA) v PC, RE

(Case C-44/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/25)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Schwechat — Austria) — JU v Air France Direktion für Österreich

(Case C-93/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/26)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 30 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Gliwicach — Poland) — D. Spółka Akcyjna v W. Zrt

(Case C-127/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/27)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 30 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — European Pallet Association eV v PHZ BV

(Case C-133/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — O. v P. AG

(Case C-138/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/29)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

(Case T-110/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China - Undertakings - Admissibility - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 - Invalidation of undertaking invoices - Temporal application of new provisions)

(2020/C 329/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: Y. Melin, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 of 7 December 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (OJ 2016 L 333, p. 4), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 of 7 December 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures, in so far as it concerns Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System;

3.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — CA Consumer Finance v ECB

(Case T-578/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Administrative pecuniary penalty imposed by the ECB on a credit institution - First subparagraph of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Continued breach of capital requirements - Negligent breach - Rights of defence - Amount of the penalty - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 329/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CA Consumer Finance (Massy, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of the ECB of 16 July 2018, taken pursuant to Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63) and imposing on the applicant an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 200 000 for continued breach of the capital requirements laid down in Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68, and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018 in so far as it imposes on CA Consumer Finance an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 200 000;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders CA Consumer Finance to bear its own costs;

4.	Orders the ECB to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Dinamo v EUIPO (Favorit)

(Case T-729/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Favorit - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 329/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dinamo GmbH (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 (Case R 985/2019-2) relating to the application for registration of the word sign Favorit as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Dinamo GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 June 2020 — Tartu Agro v Commission

(Case T-150/20 R)

(Application for interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

(2020/C 329/33)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Tartu Agro AS (Tartu, Estonia) (represented by: T. Järviste, T. Kaurov, M. Valberg and M. Peetsalu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(2020) 252 final of 24 January 2020 on State aid SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP) granted by the Republic of Estonia to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is rejected.

2.	The order of 30 March 2020, Tartu Agro v Commission (T-150/20 R), is set aside.

3.	The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 16 July 2020 — ZU v Commission

(Case T-462/20)

(2020/C 329/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 5 September 2019, denying information relevant for his defence, and of 6 April 2020, rejecting his complaint;

—	order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000, in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s right of defence and his right to effective remedy.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Appointing Authority made a manifest error in assessing the subject matter of the complaint, omitting a key plea and showing a disregard for the likelihood of/change in the applicant’s legal situation.

Action brought on 4 August 2020 — Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)

(Case T-487/20)

(2020/C 329/35)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘imot.bg’ — Application for registration No 18 001 398

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 in Case R 2270/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and order registration of the mark at issue;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 2 August 2020 — CH and CN v Parliament

(Case T-490/20)

(2020/C 329/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: CH and CN (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	declare their application admissible;

—	annul the contested decisions, in that they do not adopt a final decision on the veracity of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment;

—	order the defendant to pay each applicant EUR 5 000ex aequo et bono by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused by undue delay, to be increased by late payment interest until paid in full;

—	order the defendant to pay each applicant EUR 100 000ex aequo et bono by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused by the failure to adopt a final decision on the veracity of alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, to be increased by late payment interest until paid in full;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants rely on two pleas in law in support of the action against the decisions of the Parliament of 13 September 2019 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution, in response to their requests for assistance, did not adopt a final decision on the veracity of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment.

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of assistance and infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), on the ground that by failing to adopt a final decision on the existence of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the Parliament breached the duty of assistance which it must observe.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration, and violation of the right to dignity and infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that by failing to adopt a final decision on the existence of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the Parliament breached the principle of sound administration and its duty of care, thereby violating the human dignity of the applicants.

Action brought on 3 August 2020 — CRII-GEN and Others v Commission

(Case T-496/20)

(2020/C 329/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique CRII-GEN (Paris, France) and the six other applicants (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	declare the present action admissible;

—	annul the decision at issue;

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action against the decision of the Commission of 17 June 2020 dismissing the applicant’s informal appeal seeking the revocation of the approval of glyphosate, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging failure to apply the precautionary principle. According to the applicants, the precautionary principle gives a reason for taking restrictive measures in respect of the authorisation of glyphosate, thus leading to a review, or even the revocation of its authorisation. In that regard, they claim that countless studies show both the carcinogenic risk and the risk as an endocrine disruptor of glyphosate and the products deriving from it. Furthermore, the link that is progressively being identified between air polluting pesticides and Covid-19 necessarily entails a review of the authorisation of glyphosate in the light of those new circumstances.

Action brought on 10 August 2020 — Selmikeit & Giczella v EUIPO — Boehmert & Boehmert (HALLOWIENER)

(Case T-500/20)

(2020/C 329/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH (Osterode, Germany) (represented by: S. Keute, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boehmert & Boehmert Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB — Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark HALLOWIENER — European Union trade mark No 9 369 489

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2020 in Case R 1893/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and reject the application for revocation of contested mark No 9 369 489 HALLOWIENER.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 10 August 2020 — Munich v EUIPO — Tone Watch (MUNICH10A.T.M.)

(Case T-502/20)

(2020/C 329/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Munich, SL (La Torre de Claramunt, Spain) (represented by: M. Guix Vilanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tone Watch, SL (Madrid, Spain)

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: Word mark MUNICH10A.T.M. — European Union trade mark No 10 727 899

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 2472/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the contested decision and declare Community trade mark MUNICH10A.T.M. No. 10 727 899, of which Importaciones Issar, S.L. is the owner, invalid in relation to goods in Classes 9 (Sunglasses), 14 (Horological and chronometric instruments, boxes for watches (presentation)) and 35 (Wholesaling, retailing and sale via global computer networks of sunglasses, precious metals and their alloys, jewellery, horological and chronometric instruments) of the International Classification, uphold that decision in so far as it declares the mark invalid with respect to services in Class 35 (Advertising, Business management, Business administration, Office functions), uphold the cross-appeal and cancel the registration of the mark in relation to goods in Classes 14, namely, precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes, and 35, rental of vending machines, and order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	The contested decision did not find that the earlier marks with the common element ‘MUNICH’ have a reputation and wrongly concluded that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council is not applicable in the present case;

—	There is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in relation to the marks at issue;

—

The reasoning given in the contested decision as regards the rejection of the cross-appeal, namely that it was not lodged by a separate document, is an excessive formal restriction, since that cross-appeal is stated clearly and expressly, and prevents the applicant from asserting its rights of defence.

Action brought on 10 August 2020 — T & D Control systems v EUIPO — Sigmatron (Signalling apparatus and devices)

(Case T-503/20)

(2020/C 329/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: T & D Control systems EOOD (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Priparzhenski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sigmatron EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design 3065887-0001 (Signalling apparatus and devices)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2020 in Case R 956/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in its entirety;

—	order Sigmatron EOOD to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings, totalling EUR 4 700 in accordance with the cost specification annexed to the application.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Articles 28(1) and 30(1) of Regulation No 2245/2002 and Article 52 of Regulation No 6/2002;

—	Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 and departure from EUIPO's established practice as regards their application.

Action brought on 6 August 2020 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-507/20)

(2020/C 329/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the EEAS rejecting his request that the judgment delivered in Case T-372/18 be implemented, as set out in the note of Mr X dated 23 March 2020 and, so far as necessary, the decision of EEAS rejecting his complaint R/195/20 reiterating his request that the judgment delivered in Case T-372/18 be implemented, as set out in the note of Mrs Y dated 30 July 2020;

—

annul, [first,] the decision of the EEAS rejecting his candidature for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to Korea, notified by a note of 29 October 2019, signed by the Human Resources Director, in that the EEAS refused to state reasons for that decision and, second, the decision rejecting his application for access to documents, notified by an email of the secretariat of the Consultative Committee on Appointments (CCA) of the EEAS, dated 24 January 2020;

—

annul, first, the decisions of the Appointing Authority of the EEAS, dated 27 November 2019, not to accept his candidature for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to Uzbekistan and for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to North Macedonia and, second, the decision 21 February 2020 rejecting his application for access to documents;

—	order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant for the material harm suffered, in the amount of EUR 3 500, and the non-material harm suffered, in the symbolic amount fixed at EUR 1.

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law, the first three of which concern the non-implementation of the judgment in Case T-372/18, Colombani v EEAS, and the last three concern the decisions rejecting the applicant’s candidatures and the decisions rejecting his applications for access to documents.

1.	First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and maladministration.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging lack of neutrality, impartiality, independence and fairness.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an error in law in the interpretation of the notion of personal data and in the interpretation of Regulation No 2018/1725 and Regulation No 1049/2001 and the lack of an interpretation of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union which is consistent with the provisions of those regulations.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the limitation on the access to information infringes the principles of sound administration, right to a fair trial, equality of arms, right to an effective remedy and prevents any judicial review of the acts at issue.

Action brought on 14 August 2020 — Fachverband Spielhallen and LM v Commission

(Case T-510/20)

(2020/C 329/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Fachverband Spielhallen eV (Berlin, Germany) and LM (represented by: A. Bartosch and R. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision in so far as the defendant definitively rejected the complaint of the applicants in relation to Measure 3, namely the reduction of trade tax and income tax or corporation tax as a result of the deduction of the amounts paid in connection with the transfer of profits (‘profit skimming’) under Paragraph 14 of the SpielbankG NRW (Law on Public Casinos of North Rhine-Westphalia) from the basis of assessment of those taxes in North Rhine-Westphalia, and thus refused to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to that measure;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019)8819 final of 9 December 2019 on State Aid SA.44944 (2019/C ex 2016/FC) Tax treatment of public casinos operators in Germany and SA.53552 (2019/C ex 2019/FC) Alleged guarantee for public casinos operators in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie) — Germany.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the procedural rights of the applicants in that it refused to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation also to Measure 3. That plea in law is divided into four parts:

—	Failure to take account of the rules established by EU case-law in classifying the transfer of profits under Paragraph 14 of the SpielbankG NRW (old version) as a tax — Adoption of an erroneous premiss as the basis for the investigation.

—	Non-classification of the transfer of profits under Paragraph 14 of the SpielbankG NRW (old version) as a tax under the relevant provisions of German law.

—	Inappropriateness of the arguments relied on by the defendant in support of the fiscal nature of the transfer of profits.

—	Differentiation between general and special income taxes — reversal of the rule-exception relationship.

Action brought on 17 August 2020 — Puma v EUIPO — Caterpillar (SPEEDCAT)

(Case T-515/20)

(2020/C 329/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Caterpillar Inc. (Peoria, Illinois, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SPEEDCAT — Application for registration No 16 703 225

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 in Case R 1016/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 8 August 2020 — Bonicelli v Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking

(Case T-520/20)

(2020/C 329/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tullio Bonicelli (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the decision of Fusion for Energy of 24 October 2019, which was published on the same day, establishing the list of staff members promoted in the 2019 promotion exercise in so far as it does not include Mr Bonicelli;

—	in as far as necessary, annul the decision of Fusion for Energy of 8 May 2020 rejecting Mr Bonicelli’s complaint filed on 22 January 2020 against the list of staff members promoted in the 2019 promotion exercise;

—	order Fusion for Energy to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging abuse and misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of sound administration. In that regard, the applicant refers to the defendant’s systematic refusal to promote any official to grade AD 14 and takes the view that that refusal goes far beyond the discretion of the Appointing Authority in relation to the promotion exercise.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations) and manifest error of assessment. The applicant claims that the defendant has not shown that it considered the applicant’s merits and compared his merits with those of other officials in grade AD 13.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging discrimination against the applicant who, in his capacity as head of unit, does not enjoy the benefit of Article 30(8) and (9) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and who is, moreover, a victim of the defendant’s refusal to promote any official to grade AD 14. Thus, some officials who are in the same grade as the applicant, but who are not head of unit, may receive a higher salary.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of entitlement to reasonable career prospects. In that regard, the applicant points to his excellent staff reports, consistency in the duration of his merits, the level of responsibilities he exercises, the use of a number of languages in the course of his work, his seniority in the grade and his hierarchical superior’s recommendation that he be promoted in the 2019 promotion exercise, in addition to the recommendation to that same effect from the Joint Promotions Committee.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons. The applicant claims, inter alia, that the Appointing Authority’s reasoning for rejecting his complaint lacks information specific to his case, which amounts to a complete failure to state reasons.

Action brought on 19 August 2020 — Aldi v EUIPO (CUCINA)

(Case T-527/20)

(2020/C 329/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark CUCINA — Application for registration No 18 135 080

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2020 in Case R 463/2020-2

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 Article 7(1)(c) 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 21 August 2020 — Interfloat and GMB v Commission

(Case T-530/20)

(2020/C 329/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Interfloat Corp. (Ruggell, Lichtenstein) and GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (Tschernitz, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and R. Sangi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul Commission Decision C(2020) 3287 final of 26 May 2020 on the measures SA.39990 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) (ex/2014/FC) (ex 2014/CP) — implemented by Belgium for Ducatt NV; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.

The applicants submit that the Commission was not permitted to close the formal investigation procedure that was opened following a complaint made by the applicants. Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) (‘the regulation on State aid procedure’) provides for a specific and exhaustive procedure for the closure of the formal investigation procedure. It requires, in particular, that the formal investigation procedure be concluded by means of one of the four decisions exhaustively set out in Article 9. Closure of a formal investigation procedure is envisaged only if the Member State concerned withdraws its notification (Article 10). In the contested decision the Commission disregarded the wording, scheme and purpose of Article 108(2) TFEU and of the regulation on State aid procedure and thus the applicants’ procedural rights in the formal investigation procedure. There is in fact no sufficient justification for the closure of the procedure.

---

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