		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 414

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 63 30 November 2020

Contents		page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2020/C 414/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2020/C 414/02	Case C-66/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissibility — Jurisdiction of the Court — General Agreement on Trade in Services — Article XVI — Market access — Schedule of specific commitments — Requirement of authorisation — Article XX(2) — Article XVII — National treatment — Service provider having its seat in a third country — National legislation of a Member State imposing conditions for the supply of higher education services within its territory — Requirement relating to the conclusion of an international treaty with the State in which the provider has its seat — Requirement relating to the provision of education in the State in which the provider has its seat — Modification of conditions of competition to the benefit of national providers — Justification — Public order — Prevention of deceptive practices — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Article 16 — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Existence of a restriction — Justification — Overriding reason in the public interest — Public order — Prevention of deceptive practices — High quality of the education — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 13 — Academic freedom — Article 14(3) — Freedom to found educational establishments — Article 16 — Freedom to conduct a business — Article 52(1))	2
2020/C 414/03	Case C-134/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Article 29 TEU — Article 215 TFEU — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities covered by the freezing of financial funds and resources — Action for damages — Jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine an action for damages for the harm allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Inadequate statement of reasons for legal acts imposing restrictive measures)	3
2020/C 414/04	Case C-181/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Jobcenter Krefeld — Widerspruchsstelle v JD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of persons — Workers — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Article 10 — Children attending school — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24 — Social assistance — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 4 — Article 70 — Special non-contributory cash benefits — Migrant worker with dependent children attending school in the host Member State)	4
2020/C 414/05	Case C-235/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemption of insurance transactions — Supply of pension fund management services to trustees by investment fund managers — Exclusion of any risk indemnity — Occupational pension scheme — National tax practice — Exercise of an insurance activity — Authorised entities — Entities not holding such authorisation — Concept of insurance transactions)	5
2020/C 414/06	Joined Cases C-245/19 and C-246/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — État luxembourgeois v B (C-245/19), and État luxembourgeois v B, C, D and F.C. (C-246/19) (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/16/EU — Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation — Articles 1 and 5 — Decision ordering that information be provided to the competent authority of a Member State, acting in response to a request for exchange of information from the competent authority of another Member State — Person holding the information the protection of which is ordered by the competent authority of the first Member State — Taxpayer concerned by the investigation giving rise to the request from the competent authority of the second Member State — Third parties with whom that taxpayer maintains legal, banking, financial or, more broadly, economic relations — Judicial protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Article 52(1) — Limitation — Legal basis — Respect for the essence of the right to an effective remedy — Existence of a remedy enabling the individuals in question to obtain an effective review of all the relevant issues of fact and of law, as well as effective judicial protection of the rights guaranteed to them by EU law — Objective of general interest recognised by the Union — Combating international tax fraud and tax evasion — Proportionality — Whether the information referred to in the information order is foreseeably relevant — Judicial review — Scope — Personal, temporal and material factors to be taken into consideration)	6
2020/C 414/07	Case C-330/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Exter BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 121(1) — Inward processing procedure — Release for free circulation — Incurrence of a customs debt — Determination of the debt — Concept of taxation elements — Taking account of a preferential tariff measure)	7
2020/C 414/08	Case C-360/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Crown Van Gelder BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market for electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 37 — Duties and powers of the regulatory authority — Out-of-court dispute settlement — Concept of party having a complaint — Complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system to which that customer’s installation is not directly connected — Failure on the grid — No contractual relationship between that customer and the operator of that grid — Admissibility of the complaint)	8
2020/C 414/09	Case C-443/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — Vodafone España SAU v Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 13 — Fee for rights of use for radio frequencies — Sectoral national legislation subjecting the allocation of public radio frequencies to a charge — National legislation subjecting the grant of administrative concessions on public assets to a tax on the transfer of assets)	8
2020/C 414/10	Case C-456/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Aktiebolaget Östgötatrafiken v Patent- och registreringsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 3(1)(b) — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Distinctive character — Application for registration as a trade mark of a sign in respect of a service, consisting of motifs of colour and intended to be affixed to goods used to provide that service — Assessment of the distinctive character of that sign — Criteria)	9
2020/C 414/11	Case C-476/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Göteborg — Sweden) — Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket v Combinova AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Union Customs Code — Article 124(1)(k) — Extinction of the customs debt in the event the goods are not used — Concept of goods that have been used — Inward processing procedure — Customs debt incurred through non-compliance with requirements provided for under the inward processing procedure — Bill of discharge not submitted within the prescribed time limit)	10
2020/C 414/12	Case C-514/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union des industries de la protection des plantes v Premier Ministre, Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Emergency measures — Officially informing the European Commission — Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations — Neonicotinoids — Protection of bees — Principle of sincere cooperation)	10
2020/C 414/13	Case C-558/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia Sucursala Cluj v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 63 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Calculation of the taxable income of companies — Persons having a relationship of interdependence — Unusual advantage granted by a resident branch to a non-resident company — Correction of the taxable income of the branch of a non-resident company — No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a branch to a resident company — Principle of free competition — Restriction on freedom of establishment — Justification — Balanced allocation of the power to tax between Member States — Proportionality)	11
2020/C 414/14	Case C-568/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — MO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) — Illegal stay — National legislation providing for either a fine or removal, depending on the circumstances — Consequences of the judgment of 23 April 2015, Zaizoune (C-38/14, EU:C:2015:260) — National legislation more favourable to the interested party — Direct effect of directives — Limits)	12
2020/C 414/15	Case C-602/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — kohlpharma GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Refusal to approve an amendment to the particulars and documents relating to a medicinal product which is the subject of a parallel import licence — Protection of the health and life of humans — Directive 2001/83/EC)	13
2020/C 414/16	Case C-641/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — EU v PE Digital GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Point 11 of Article 2, Article 14(3) and Article 16(m) — Distance contract — Supply of digital content and digital services — Right of withdrawal — Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal — Determination of the amount to be paid by the consumer for the services provided before the exercise of the right of withdrawal — Exception to the right of withdrawal in the case of the supply of digital content)	13
2020/C 414/17	Case C-644/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — FT v Universitatea Lucian Blaga Sibiu, GS and Others, HS, Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 1, 2 and 3 — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Measure taken by a university pursuant to national law — Retention of tenured lecturer status beyond the statutory retirement age — Possibility restricted to lecturers with doctoral supervisor status — Lecturers who do not have this status — Fixed-term employment contracts — Lower remuneration than for tenured lecturers)	14
2020/C 414/18	Case C-657/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt D v E (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(g) — Supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work — Preparation of expert reports on the level of care and support needs — Taxable person appointed by the medical service of a care and support insurance fund — Bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing)	15
2020/C 414/19	Case C-711/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Admiral Sportwetten GmbH, Novomatic AG, AKO Gastronomiebetriebs GmbH v Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Article 1 — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Definition of technical regulation — Games of chance — Local duty on the operation of betting terminals — Tax rule — European Commission not notified — Enforceability against the taxpayer)	16
2020/C 414/20	Case C-320/18 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Crocs Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Gifi Diffusion (Appeal — Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Declaration of invalidity — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Costs)	16
2020/C 414/21	Case C-610/19: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Vikingo Fővállalkozó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168, 178, 220 and 226 — Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality — Right to deduct VAT — Refusal — Conditions for the existence of a supply of goods — Evasion — Proof — Penalty — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective judicial remedy)	17
2020/C 414/22	Case C-611/19: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Crewprint Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality — Right to VAT deduction — Refusal — Fraud — Proof — Chain of subcontractors)	18
2020/C 414/23	Case C-837/19: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Super Bock Bebidas SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17(6) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168 and 176 — Exclusion from the right to deduct — Purchase of accommodation, food, drink, vehicle leases, fuel and tolls services — Standstill clause — Accession to the European Union)	18
2020/C 414/24	Case C-98/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 — Czech Republic) — mBank S.A. v PA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Jurisdiction in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled — Article 18(2) — Proceedings brought against the consumer by the seller or supplier — Concept of consumer’s domicile — Relevant time for determining the consumer’s domicile — Transfer of the consumer’s domicile after the conclusion of the contract and before the action is brought)	19
2020/C 414/25	Case C-135/20: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — JS v Câmara Municipal de Gondomar (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 5 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Successive contracts — Prohibition on converting fixed-term contracts to open-ended contracts — Whether permissible)	20
2020/C 414/26	Case C-137/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — MV v SATA International — Serviços e Transportes Aéreos SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of extraordinary circumstances — Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory framework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)	20
2020/C 414/27	Case C-690/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 19 September 2019 — XC v Subdelegación del Gobierno de Toledo	21
2020/C 414/28	Case C-284/20 P: Appeal brought on 29 June 2020 by Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-73/19, Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag v EUIPO — Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen (Wood-splitting tool)	21
2020/C 414/29	Case C-313/20 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-106/19, Abarca v EUIPO — Abanca Corporación Bancaria (ABARCA SEGUROS)	21
2020/C 414/30	Case C-417/20: Request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) of 3 September 2020 — Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT), État belge, Inmarsat Ventures SE	22
2020/C 414/31	Case C-419/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg	22
2020/C 414/32	Case C-427/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2020 — Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Kiel	23
2020/C 414/33	Case C-433/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 September 2020 — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Strato AG	23
2020/C 414/34	Case C-461/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 September 2020 — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB	24
2020/C 414/35	Case C-486/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 1 October 2020 — Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije	24
2020/C 414/36	Case C-354/19: Order of the President of the Court of 25 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — Sweden) — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket	25
2020/C 414/37	Case C-663/19: Order of the President of the Court of 24 August 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gera — Germany) — MM v Volkswagen AG	25
2020/C 414/38	Case C-810/19: Order of the President of the Court of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Flightright GmbH v Qatar Airways	25
2020/C 414/39	Case C-827/19: Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 4 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra — Spain) — D.A.T.A., L.F.A., A.M.A.G., L.F.A., J.G.C., S.C.C., A.C.V., A.A.G., A.C.A., L.C.A., N.P.B., P.C.A. v Ryanair D.A.C.	26
2020/C 414/40	Case C-904/19: Order of the President of the Court of 28 August 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — E. Sp. z o.o v K.S.	26
2020/C 414/41	Case C-943/19: Order of the President of the Court of 7 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ONDO v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs	26
2020/C 414/42	Case C-944/19: Order of the President of the Court of 7 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — AS 4finance v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs	26
2020/C 414/43	Case C-945/19: Order of the President of the Court of 7 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA OC Finance v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs	27
2020/C 414/44	Case C-946/19: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — MG v HH	27
2020/C 414/45	Case C-252/20: Order of the President of the Court of 13 August 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — CY v Eurowings GmbH	27
	General Court
2020/C 414/46	Joined Cases T-515/13 RENV and T-719/13 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Spain and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain economic interest groupings (EIG) and their investors — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) — Decision declaring the aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery in part — Selective nature — Obligation to state reasons — Recovery of the aid — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)	28
2020/C 414/47	Case T-381/15 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Development cooperation — Implementation of the EU budget under indirect management — Decision suspending the applicant’s ability to conclude new delegation agreements for indirect management with the Commission — Unlawfulness — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Application for injunctive relief — Late submission of application — Modification of the nature of the reparation sought — Inadmissibility)	29
2020/C 414/48	Joined Cases T-401/16 and T-443/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Spain and Italy v Commission (Language regime — Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of Investigators and Team leaders — Language skills — Limitation of the choice of second language in the competitions to German, English and French — Eliminatory language-comprehension test in English — Language of communication — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Discrimination based on language — Justification — Interests of the service — Proportionality)	29
2020/C 414/49	Case T-249/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Plea of illegality against Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Right to an effective remedy — Equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons — Right to inviolability of the home — Sufficiently strong evidence — Proportionality)	30
2020/C 414/50	Case T-254/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Plea of illegality of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Right to an effective remedy — Equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons — Right to inviolability of the home — Reasonable grounds — Evidence of participation in the suspected infringements — Proportionality)	31
2020/C 414/51	Case T-255/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Administrative procedure — Decisions ordering an inspection — Plea of illegality against Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Right to an effective remedy — Obligation to state reasons — Right to inviolability of the home — Sufficiently strong evidence — Proportionality — Action for annulment — Complaints relating to manner of conduction the inspection — Refusal to protect the confidentiality of data relating to private life — Inadmissibility)	32
2020/C 414/52	Case T-380/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Market for grey cement in Croatia — Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Undertakings concerned — Relevant market — Substantial part of the internal market — Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition — Commitments — Rights of the defence — Partial referral to the national authorities)	33
2020/C 414/53	Cases T-77/18 and T-567/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — VE v ESMA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Appraisal report — 2016 appraisal exercise — Plea of illegality relating to the appraisals guide — Manifest error of assessment — Assessment of activities undertaken as staff representative — Procedural irregularity — Termination of the work contract — Insufficient performance during a period of two years)	33
2020/C 414/54	Case T-18/19: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Brown v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Official with United Kingdom nationality at the date of entering the service — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Acquisition of the nationality of the country of employment during the course of a career — Loss of the expatriation allowance — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination — Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)	34
2020/C 414/55	Case T-264/19: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — nanoPET Pharma v EUIPO — Miltenyi Biotec (viscover) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark viscover — Absence of bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))	35
2020/C 414/56	Case T-289/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Arbuzov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State respected the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)	35
2020/C 414/57	Case T-475/20: Action brought on 9 August 2020 — LE v Commission	36
2020/C 414/58	Case T-579/20: Action brought on 21 September 2020 — Genekam Biotechnology v Commission	37
2020/C 414/59	Case T-580/20: Action brought on 7 October 2020 — KC v Commission	38
2020/C 414/60	Case T-582/20: Action brought on 17 September 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 and Others v Commission	39
2020/C 414/61	Case T-588/20: Action brought on 25 September 2020 — MP v Commission	40
2020/C 414/62	Case T-602/20: Action brought on 30 September 2020 — MS v Commission	41
2020/C 414/63	Case T-606/20: Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER	41
2020/C 414/64	Case T-607/20: Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER	42
2020/C 414/65	Case T-611/20: Action brought on 2 October 2020 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission	43
2020/C 414/66	Case T-617/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Standardkessel Baumgarte Holding v EUIPO (Standardkessel)	44
2020/C 414/67	Case T-623/20: Action brought on 9 October 2020 — Sun West and Others v Commission	45
2020/C 414/68	Case T-626/20: Action brought on 12 October 2020 — Landwärme v Commission	46
2020/C 414/69	Case T-628/20: Action brought on 16 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission	47

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/1

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

(2020/C 414/01)

Last publication

Past publications

These texts are available on:

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

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-66/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Jurisdiction of the Court - General Agreement on Trade in Services - Article XVI - Market access - Schedule of specific commitments - Requirement of authorisation - Article XX(2) - Article XVII - National treatment - Service provider having its seat in a third country - National legislation of a Member State imposing conditions for the supply of higher education services within its territory - Requirement relating to the conclusion of an international treaty with the State in which the provider has its seat - Requirement relating to the provision of education in the State in which the provider has its seat - Modification of conditions of competition to the benefit of national providers - Justification - Public order - Prevention of deceptive practices - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Article 16 - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Existence of a restriction - Justification - Overriding reason in the public interest - Public order - Prevention of deceptive practices - High quality of the education - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 13 - Academic freedom - Article 14(3) - Freedom to found educational establishments - Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - Article 52(1))

(2020/C 414/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Malferrari, B. De Meester and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Declares that, by adopting the measure provided for in Article 76(1)(a) of Nemzeti felsőoktatásról szóló 2011. évi CCIV. törvény (Law No CCIV of 2011 on national higher education), as amended by Nemzeti felsőoktatásról szóló 2011. évi CCIV. törvény módosításáról szóló 2017. évi XXV. törvény (Law No XXV of 2017 amending Law No CCIV of 2011 on national higher education), which makes the exercise, in Hungary, of teaching activities leading to a qualification by foreign higher education institutions situated outside the European Economic Area subject to the condition that the Government of Hungary and the government of the State in which the institution concerned has its seat have agreed to be bound by an international treaty, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article XVII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, in Annex 1B to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, signed in Marrakesh and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994);

Declares that, by adopting the measure provided for in Article 76(1)(b) of Nemzeti felsőoktatásról szóló 2011. évi CCIV. törvény (Law No CCIV of 2011 on national higher education), as amended by Nemzeti felsőoktatásról szóló 2011. évi CCIV. törvény módosításáról szóló 2017. évi XXV. törvény (Law No XXV of 2017 amending Law No CCIV of 2011 on national higher education), which makes the exercise, in Hungary, of the activities of foreign higher education institutions subject to the condition that they offer higher education in the State in which they have their seat, Hungary has failed, in so far as that provision applies to higher education institutions which have their seat in a third country member of the World Trade Organisation, to fulfil its obligations under Article XVII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, in Annex 1B to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, signed in Marrakesh and approved by Decision 94/800, and, in so far as the provision applies to higher education institutions having their seat in another Member State, to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market;

Declares that, by adopting the measures provided for in Article 76(1)(a) and (b) of Nemzeti felsőoktatásról szóló 2011. évi CCIV. törvény (Law No CCIV of 2011 on national higher education), as amended by Nemzeti felsőoktatásról szóló 2011. évi CCIV. törvény módosításáról szóló 2017. évi XXV. törvény (Law No XXV of 2017 amending Law No CCIV of 2011 on national higher education), Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13, Article 14(3) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

4.	Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-134/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Article 29 TEU - Article 215 TFEU - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities covered by the freezing of financial funds and resources - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine an action for damages for the harm allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Inadequate statement of reasons for legal acts imposing restrictive measures)

(2020/C 414/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bank Refah Kargaran (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin and I. Boubaker, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: R. Tricot, C. Zadra and A. Tizzano, and subsequently by L. Gussetti, A. Bouquet, R. Tricot and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Bank Refah Kargaran to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Jobcenter Krefeld — Widerspruchsstelle v JD

(Case C-181/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of persons - Workers - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Article 10 - Children attending school - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24 - Social assistance - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 4 - Article 70 - Special non-contributory cash benefits - Migrant worker with dependent children attending school in the host Member State)

(2020/C 414/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jobcenter Krefeld — Widerspruchsstelle

Defendant: JD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) and Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a national of another Member State and his minor children, all of whom have, in the former Member State, a right of residence based on Article 10 of that regulation, by virtue of those children attending school in that State, are automatically and in all circumstances excluded from entitlement to benefits to cover their subsistence costs. That interpretation is not called into question by Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC;

Article 4 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, read together with Article 3(3) and Article 70(2) of that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a national of another Member State and his minor children, all of whom have, in the former Member State, a right of residence based on Article 10 of Regulation No 492/2011, by virtue of those children attending school in that State, and are integrated there in a social security system within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, are automatically and in all circumstances excluded from entitlement to special non-contributory cash benefits.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-235/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemption of insurance transactions - Supply of pension fund management services to trustees by investment fund managers - Exclusion of any risk indemnity - Occupational pension scheme - National tax practice - Exercise of an insurance activity - Authorised entities - Entities not holding such authorisation - Concept of ‘insurance transactions’)

(2020/C 414/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that investment fund management services supplied for an occupational pension scheme, which do not provide any indemnity from risk, cannot be classified as ‘insurance transactions’, within the meaning of that provision, and thus do not fall within the value added tax (VAT) exemption laid down in that provision in favour of such transactions.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — État luxembourgeois v B (C-245/19), and État luxembourgeois v B, C, D and F.C. (C-246/19)

(Joined Cases C-245/19 and C-246/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/16/EU - Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation - Articles 1 and 5 - Decision ordering that information be provided to the competent authority of a Member State, acting in response to a request for exchange of information from the competent authority of another Member State - Person holding the information the protection of which is ordered by the competent authority of the first Member State - Taxpayer concerned by the investigation giving rise to the request from the competent authority of the second Member State - Third parties with whom that taxpayer maintains legal, banking, financial or, more broadly, economic relations - Judicial protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Article 52(1) - Limitation - Legal basis - Respect for the essence of the right to an effective remedy - Existence of a remedy enabling the individuals in question to obtain an effective review of all the relevant issues of fact and of law, as well as effective judicial protection of the rights guaranteed to them by EU law - Objective of general interest recognised by the Union - Combating international tax fraud and tax evasion - Proportionality - Whether the information referred to in the information order is ‘foreseeably relevant’ - Judicial review - Scope - Personal, temporal and material factors to be taken into consideration)

(2020/C 414/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État luxembourgeois (C-245/19), (C-246/19)

Respondents: B (C-245/19); B, C, D and F.C. (C-246/19)

Intervener: A (C-246/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as:

—

precluding legislation of a Member State implementing the procedure for the exchange of information on request established by Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 2014/107/EU of 9 December 2014, which prevents a person holding information from bringing an action against a decision by which the competent authority of that Member State orders that person to provide it with that information, with a view to following up on a request for exchange of information made by the competent authority of another Member State, and as

—	not precluding such legislation from preventing the taxpayer concerned, in that other Member State, by the investigation giving rise to that request for exchange of information and the third parties concerned by the information in question from bringing actions against that decision.

Article 1(1) and Article 5 of Directive 2011/16, as amended by Directive 2014/107, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which the competent authority of a Member State orders a person holding information to provide it with that information, with a view to following up on a request for exchange of information made by the competent authority of another Member State, is to be considered, taken together with that request, as concerning information which is not manifestly devoid of any foreseeable relevance where it states the identity of the person holding the information in question, that of the taxpayer concerned by the investigation giving rise to the request for exchange of information, and the period covered by that investigation, and where it relates to contracts, invoices and payments which, although not specifically identified, are defined by criteria relating, first, to the fact that they were concluded or carried out by the person holding the information, secondly, to the fact that they took place during the period covered by that investigation and, thirdly, to their connection with the taxpayer concerned.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/7

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Exter BV

(Case C-330/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 121(1) - Inward processing procedure - Release for free circulation - Incurrence of a customs debt - Determination of the debt - Concept of ‘taxation elements’ - Taking account of a preferential tariff measure)

(2020/C 414/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Exter BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 121(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as precluding the application of a preferential tariff measure leading to a reduced rate of customs duty, which was in force at the time of acceptance of the declaration of placing of goods under the inward processing procedure, but which was suspended at the date of acceptance of the declaration of release of those goods for free circulation.

(1) OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Crown Van Gelder BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt

(Case C-360/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market for electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 37 - Duties and powers of the regulatory authority - Out-of-court dispute settlement - Concept of ‘party having a complaint’ - Complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system to which that customer’s installation is not directly connected - Failure on the grid - No contractual relationship between that customer and the operator of that grid - Admissibility of the complaint)

(2020/C 414/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Crown Van Gelder BV

Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt

Other party: TenneT TSO BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the regulatory authority may not dismiss a complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system, following a power failure in that system, on the ground that that final customer’s installation is connected not to that transmission system directly, but only to a distribution system fed by it.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/8

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — Vodafone España SAU v Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

(Case C-443/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 13 - Fee for rights of use for radio frequencies - Sectoral national legislation subjecting the allocation of public radio frequencies to a charge - National legislation subjecting the grant of administrative concessions on public assets to a tax on the transfer of assets)

(2020/C 414/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone España SAU

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, whose legislation provides that the right to use radio frequencies is subject to a charge for the allocation of public radio frequencies, from also subjecting the grant of administrative concessions in that field to a tax on the transfer of assets applicable generally to the grant of administrative concessions on public assets under legislation that is not specifically applicable to the electronic communications sector, where the chargeable event giving rise to that tax is linked to the granting of rights of use for radio frequencies, provided that that charge and that tax, taken together, satisfy the conditions set out in that article, in particular, the condition relating to the proportionate nature of the amount collected in return for the right to use radio frequencies, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/9

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Aktiebolaget Östgötatrafiken v Patent- och registreringsverket

(Case C-456/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(b) - Signs of which a trade mark may consist - Distinctive character - Application for registration as a trade mark of a sign in respect of a service, consisting of motifs of colour and intended to be affixed to goods used to provide that service - Assessment of the distinctive character of that sign - Criteria)

(2020/C 414/10)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aktiebolaget Östgötatrafiken

Defendant: Patent- och registreringsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the distinctive character of a sign for which registration as a trade mark in respect of a service is sought, which sign is composed of coloured motifs and which is intended to be affixed exclusively and systematically in a specific manner to a large part of the goods used for the provision of that service, must be assessed by taking into account the perception of the relevant public of the affixing of that sign to those goods, without it being necessary to examine whether that sign departs significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Göteborg — Sweden) — Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket v Combinova AB

(Case C-476/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Union Customs Code - Article 124(1)(k) - Extinction of the customs debt in the event the goods are not used - Concept of ‘goods that have been used’ - Inward processing procedure - Customs debt incurred through non-compliance with requirements provided for under the inward processing procedure - Bill of discharge not submitted within the prescribed time limit)

(2020/C 414/11)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Göteborg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket

Opposing party: Combinova AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 124(1)(k) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the use of the goods referred to in that provision concerns only use which goes beyond the processing operations authorised by the customs authority under the inward processing procedure provided for in Article 256 of that code, and not use in accordance with those authorised processing operations.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union des industries de la protection des plantes v Premier Ministre, Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail

(Case C-514/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Emergency measures - Officially informing the European Commission - Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations - Neonicotinoids - Protection of bees - Principle of sincere cooperation)

(2020/C 414/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Union des industries de la protection des plantes

Defendants: Premier Ministre, Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail

Interested parties: Association Générations futures, Union nationale de l’apiculture française (UNAF), Syndicat national de l’apiculture

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, and Article 71(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the communication, under Article 5 of that directive, of a national measure prohibiting the use of certain active substances falling within the scope of that regulation must be regarded as the official provision of information on the need to take emergency measures within the meaning of Article 71(1) of that regulation, where:

—

that communication contains a clear presentation of the evidence showing, first, that those active substances are likely to constitute a serious risk to human or animal health or to the environment and, second, that that risk cannot be satisfactorily controlled without the adoption, as a matter of urgency, of the measures taken by the Member State concerned, and where

—	the European Commission failed to ask that Member State whether that communication must be treated as the official provision of information under Article 71(1) of that regulation.

Article 71(1) of Regulation No 1107/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/783 of 29 May 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance imidacloprid, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/784 of 29 May 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance clothianidin, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/785 of 29 May 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance thiamethoxam cannot be regarded as measures taken by the European Commission in response to the French Republic’s communication of 2 February 2017.

(1) OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/11

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia Sucursala Cluj v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-558/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 63 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Calculation of the taxable income of companies - Persons having a relationship of interdependence - Unusual advantage granted by a resident branch to a non-resident company - Correction of the taxable income of the branch of a non-resident company - No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a branch to a resident company - Principle of free competition - Restriction on freedom of establishment - Justification - Balanced allocation of the power to tax between Member States - Proportionality)

(2020/C 414/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia Sucursala Cluj

Defendant: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, legislation of a Member State under which a transfer of money from a resident branch to its parent company established in another Member State may be reclassified as a ‘revenue-generating transaction’, with the consequent obligation to apply the rules on transfer pricing, whereas, if the same transaction had been effected between a company branch and a parent company, both of which were established in the same Member State, that transaction would not have been classified in the same way and the rules on transfer pricing would not have been applied.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/12

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — MO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

(Case C-568/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) - Illegal stay - National legislation providing for either a fine or removal, depending on the circumstances - Consequences of the judgment of 23 April 2015, Zaizoune (C-38/14, EU:C:2015:260) - National legislation more favourable to the interested party - Direct effect of directives - Limits)

(2020/C 414/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MO

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that, where national legislation makes provision, in the event of a third-country national staying illegally in the territory of a Member State, for either a fine or removal, and the latter measure may be adopted only if there are aggravating circumstances concerning that national, additional to his or her illegal stay, the competent national authority may not rely directly on the provisions of that directive in order to adopt a return decision and to enforce that decision, even in the absence of such aggravating circumstances.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — kohlpharma GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-602/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Refusal to approve an amendment to the particulars and documents relating to a medicinal product which is the subject of a parallel import licence - Protection of the health and life of humans - Directive 2001/83/EC)

(2020/C 414/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: kohlpharma GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the competent authority of a Member State from refusing to approve amendments to the particulars and documents relating to a medicinal product which is covered by a marketing authorisation in another Member State and by a licence for parallel import into the first Member State, on the sole ground that the marketing authorisation of reference in the first Member State has expired and the proposed amendments are based on both the indications authorised in the other Member State for the parallel-imported medicinal product and the indications relating to a medicinal product with the same therapeutic indication, which is covered by a marketing authorisation in the two Member States concerned and which is essentially manufactured with the same active ingredient but in a different pharmaceutical form, where the parallel import licence at issue is still valid and there is insufficient evidence of a risk to the effective protection of the life and health of humans.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — EU v PE Digital GmbH

(Case C-641/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Point 11 of Article 2, Article 14(3) and Article 16(m) - Distance contract - Supply of digital content and digital services - Right of withdrawal - Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal - Determination of the amount to be paid by the consumer for the services provided before the exercise of the right of withdrawal - Exception to the right of withdrawal in the case of the supply of digital content)

(2020/C 414/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EU

Defendant: PE Digital GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the proportionate amount to be paid by the consumer to the trader where that consumer has expressly requested that the performance of the contract concluded begin during the withdrawal period and withdraws from that contract, it is appropriate, in principle, to take account of the price agreed in the contract for the full coverage of the contract and to calculate the amount owed pro rata temporis. It is only where the contract concluded expressly provides that one or more of the services are to be provided in full from the beginning of the performance of the contract and separately, for a price which must be paid separately, that the full price for such a service should be taken into account in the calculation of the amount owed to the trader under Article 14(3) of that directive.

Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83, read in the light of recital 50 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the total price is excessive within the meaning of that provision, account should be taken of the price of the service offered by the trader concerned to other consumers under the same conditions and that of the equivalent service supplied by other traders at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

Article 16(m) of Directive 2011/83, read in conjunction with point 11 of Article 2 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the generation of a personality report by a dating website on the basis of a personality test carried out by that website does not constitute the supply of ‘digital content’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/14

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — FT v Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, HS, Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale

(Case C-644/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 1, 2 and 3 - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Measure taken by a university pursuant to national law - Retention of tenured lecturer status beyond the statutory retirement age - Possibility restricted to lecturers with doctoral supervisor status - Lecturers who do not have this status - Fixed-term employment contracts - Lower remuneration than for tenured lecturers)

(2020/C 414/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FT

Defendants: Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, HS, Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not being applicable to national legislation under which, among members of the teaching staff of a university continuing to work there after reaching the statutory retirement age, only lecturers with doctoral supervisor status may retain their status as tenured lecturers, while lecturers without doctoral supervisor status may conclude only fixed-term employment contracts with that establishment, which include a system of lower remuneration than that for tenured lecturers.

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding the application of national legislation under which, among members of the teaching staff of a university who continue to work there after reaching the statutory retirement age, only lecturers with doctoral supervisor status may retain their status as tenured lecturers, while lecturers without doctoral supervisor status may conclude only fixed-term employment contracts with that establishment, which include a system of lower remuneration than that for tenured lecturers, to the extent that the first category of lecturer is composed of permanent workers comparable to the workers in the second category, and that the difference in treatment arising, in particular, from the system of remuneration in question is not justified by an objective reason, which it is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/15

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt D v E

(Case C-657/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(g) - Supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work - Preparation of expert reports on the level of care and support needs - Taxable person appointed by the medical service of a care and support insurance fund - Bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing)

(2020/C 414/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt D

Defendant: E

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the preparation of expert reports on care and support needs by an independent expert on behalf of the medical service of a care and support insurance fund, which are used by that fund in order to assess the scope of the entitlements to welfare and social security services of persons insured by it, constitutes a supply of services that is closely linked to welfare and social security work in so far as it is essential in order to ensure the proper implementation of transactions in that sector;

—

that provision does not preclude that expert from being refused recognition as a body devoted to social wellbeing, even though, first, that expert provides his or her services concerning the preparation of expert reports on care and support needs, as a subcontractor, at the request of that medical service which is recognised as such a body, second, the costs of preparing such reports are borne indirectly, on a flat-rate basis, by the care and support insurance fund concerned, and, third, that expert has the possibility, under national law, to conclude a contract relating to the preparation of those reports directly with that fund in order to be entitled to such recognition, but has not made use of that possibility.

(1) OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/16

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Admiral Sportwetten GmbH, Novomatic AG, AKO Gastronomiebetriebs GmbH v Magistrat der Stadt Wien

(Case C-711/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Article 1 - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Definition of ‘technical regulation’ - Games of chance - Local duty on the operation of betting terminals - Tax rule - European Commission not notified - Enforceability against the taxpayer)

(2020/C 414/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Admiral Sportwetten GmbH, Novomatic AG, AKO Gastronomiebetriebs GmbH

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services must be interpreted as meaning that a national tax rule that provides for taxation of the operation of betting terminals does not constitute a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of that article.

(1) OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/16

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Crocs Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Gifi Diffusion

(Case C-320/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Declaration of invalidity - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Costs)

(2020/C 414/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Crocs Inc. (represented by: J. Guise and D. Knight, Solicitors, and H. Haouideg, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents), Gifi Diffusion (represented by: C. de Chassey, avocate)

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

2.	Crocs Inc. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the present appeal proceedings.

3.	Gifi Diffusion shall bear its own costs incurred in these proceedings.

(1) OJ C 319, 10.9.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/17

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Vikingo Fővállalkozó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-610/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168, 178, 220 and 226 - Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality - Right to deduct VAT - Refusal - Conditions for the existence of a supply of goods - Evasion - Proof - Penalty - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective judicial remedy)

(2020/C 414/21)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vikingo Fővállalkozó Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice by which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct the value added tax paid on purchases of goods which were supplied to him or her, on the ground that credence cannot be given to the invoices relating to those purchases because, first, the manufacture of those goods and their supply could not, as the necessary material and human resources were lacking, have been effected by the issuer of those invoices and the goods were therefore, in fact, purchased from an unidentified person, secondly, the national accounting rules were not complied with, thirdly, the supply chain which led to those purchases was not economically justified and, fourthly, irregularities vitiated certain earlier transactions forming part of that supply chain. In order to provide a basis for such a refusal, it must be established to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person actively participated in fraud or that that taxable person knew or should have known that those transactions were connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoices or any other trader acting upstream in that supply chain, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/18

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Crewprint Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-611/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality - Right to VAT deduction - Refusal - Fraud - Proof - Chain of subcontractors)

(2020/C 414/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Crewprint Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice by which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct input value added tax on the ground that the conduct of that taxable person and of the issuer of the invoices amounts to fraud because, first, their contracts were not necessary for the performance of the economic transactions in question and could be legally classified other than how the parties did so, secondly, that issuer has had recourse, without it being necessary or economically rational, to a chain of subcontractors, some of which did not have the necessary personnel and material resources and, thirdly, that taxable person had personal or organisational links with that issuer as well as with one of those subcontractors. In order to provide a basis for such a refusal, it must be established, other than by assumptions based on pre-established criteria, that that same taxable person actively participated in fraud or that that taxable person knew or should have known that those transactions were connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoices, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/18

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Super Bock Bebidas SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-837/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17(6) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168 and 176 - Exclusion from the right to deduct - Purchase of accommodation, food, drink, vehicle leases, fuel and tolls services - Standstill clause - Accession to the European Union)

(2020/C 414/23)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Super Bock Bebidas SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

Article 17(6) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which came into force after the date of accession of that Member State to the European Union, and according to which the exclusions from the right to deduct value added tax charged on expenditure relating to, in particular, accommodation, food, drink, vehicle leases, fuel and tolls, also apply where it is established that that expenditure was incurred for the purchase of goods and services used for the purposes of taxed transactions.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/19

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 — Czech Republic) — mBank S.A. v PA

(Case C-98/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Jurisdiction in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled - Article 18(2) - Proceedings brought against the consumer by the seller or supplier - Concept of ‘consumer’s domicile’ - Relevant time for determining the consumer’s domicile - Transfer of the consumer’s domicile after the conclusion of the contract and before the action is brought)

(2020/C 414/24)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: mBank S.A.

Defendant: PA

Operative part of the order

The concept of ‘consumer’s domicile’ referred to in Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as designating the consumer’s domicile at the date on which the court action is brought.

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/20

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — JS v Câmara Municipal de Gondomar

(Case C-135/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Successive contracts - Prohibition on converting fixed-term contracts to open-ended contracts - Whether permissible)

(2020/C 414/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JS

Defendant: Câmara Municipal de Gondomar

Operative part of the order

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that, in the public sector, prohibits absolutely the conversion of a succession of fixed-term employment contracts into a contract of indefinite duration, where that legislation does not include, as regards that sector, another effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/20

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — MV v SATA International — Serviços e Transportes Aéreos SA

(Case C-137/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory framework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 414/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MV

Defendant: SATA International — Serviços e Transportes Aéreos SA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Azores District Court, Portugal), by decision of 10 January 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 19 September 2019 — XC v Subdelegación del Gobierno de Toledo

(Case C-690/19)

(2020/C 414/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XC

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno de Toledo

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

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/21

Appeal brought on 29 June 2020 by Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-73/19, Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag v EUIPO — Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen (Wood-splitting tool)

(Case C-284/20 P)

(2020/C 414/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 6 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and ordered Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag to bear its own costs.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/21

Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-106/19, Abarca v EUIPO — Abanca Corporación Bancaria (ABARCA SEGUROS)

(Case C-313/20 P)

(2020/C 414/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA (represented by: J. M. Pimenta, advogado, Á. Pinho, advogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA

By order of 13 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and ordered Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA to bear its own costs.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/22

Request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) of 3 September 2020 — Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT), État belge, Inmarsat Ventures SE

(Case C-417/20)

(2020/C 414/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring Court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc.

Defendants: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT), État belge, Inmarsat Ventures SE

By order of 8 October 2020, the President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg

(Case C-419/20)

(2020/C 414/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG, represented by its general partner Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Question referred

Is there an infringement of EU law, which is a condition for entitlement to interest under EU law as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, where a Member State authority imposes a duty pursuant to EU law but a Member State court subsequently finds that the factual conditions for the imposition of the duty have not been met?

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2020 — Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Kiel

(Case C-427/20)

(2020/C 414/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel

Question referred

Is there an infringement of EU law, which is a condition for entitlement to interest under EU law as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, where a Member State authority imposes a duty in breach of legally valid provisions of EU law and a Member State court makes a finding of that infringement of EU law?

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 September 2020 — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Strato AG

(Case C-433/20)

(2020/C 414/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH

Respondent: Strato AG

Questions referred

Is the expression ‘on any medium’ in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (‘Directive 2001/29’) to be interpreted as meaning that it also includes servers owned by third parties which make available to natural persons (customers) for private use (and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial) storage space on those servers which those customers use for reproduction by storage (‘cloud computing’)?

If so: is the provision cited in Question 1 to be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to national legislation under which the author is entitled to equitable remuneration (remuneration for exploitation of the right of reproduction on storage media), in the case:

—

where a work (which has been broadcast, made available to the public or recorded on a storage medium produced for commercial purposes) is by its nature likely to be reproduced for personal or private use by being stored ‘on a storage medium of any kind which is suitable for such reproduction and, in the course of a commercial activity, is placed on the market in national territory’,

—	and where the storage method used in that context is that described in Question 1?

(1) Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 September 2020 — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB

(Case C-461/20)

(2020/C 414/34)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Advania Sverige AB and Kammarkollegiet

Defendant: Dustin Sverige AB

Question referred

Does the circumstance that a new contractor has taken over the initial contractor’s rights and obligations under a framework agreement, after the initial contractor has been declared insolvent and the insolvency estate has transferred the agreement, mean that the new contractor will be deemed to have succeeded into the position of the initial contractor under conditions such as those referred to in Article 72(1)(d)(ii) of the Public Procurement Directive (1)?

(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).

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 1 October 2020 — Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije

(Case C-486/20)

(2020/C 414/35)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije

Defendants: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije, Vlada Republike Slovenije

Questions referred

Is point 8 of Annex I to Directive (EU) 2016/681 (1) compatible with Articles 7 and 8 and the first paragraph of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in view of the fact that it is not clear whether it includes only the information relating to the fact that the person concerned has frequent flier status, or also other information relating to flights and bookings covered by the frequent flyer programme, which might mean that the requirement relating to the clarity and precision of rules affecting the right to protection of private life and the right to protection of personal data is not met?

Is point 12 of Annex I to Directive (EU) 2016/681 compatible with Articles 7 and 8 and the first paragraph of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in view of the fact that the requested information is not set out in detail and, at the same time, that that point of the annex does not lay down any limitation on the nature and scope of the information, which might mean that the requirement relating to the clarity and precision of rules affecting the right to protection of private life and the right to protection of personal data is not met?

(1) Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 132).

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/25

Order of the President of the Court of 25 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — Sweden) — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket

(Case C-354/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/36)

Language of the case: Swedish

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

(1) OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/25

Order of the President of the Court of 24 August 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gera — Germany) — MM v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-663/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/37)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/25

Order of the President of the Court of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Flightright GmbH v Qatar Airways

(Case C-810/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/38)

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.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/26

Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 4 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra — Spain) — D.A.T.A., L.F.A., A.M.A.G., L.F.A., J.G.C., S.C.C., A.C.V., A.A.G., A.C.A., L.C.A., N.P.B., P.C.A. v Ryanair D.A.C.

(Case C-827/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/39)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/26

Order of the President of the Court of 28 August 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — E. Sp. z o.o v K.S.

(Case C-904/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/40)

Language of the case: Polish

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

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/26

Order of the President of the Court of 7 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘ONDO’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-943/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/41)

Language of the case: Latvian

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

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/26

Order of the President of the Court of 7 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — AS ‘4finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-944/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/42)

Language of the case: Latvian

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

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/27

Order of the President of the Court of 7 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘OC Finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-945/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/43)

Language of the case: Latvian

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

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/27

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — MG v HH

(Case C-946/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/44)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/27

Order of the President of the Court of 13 August 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — CY v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-252/20) (1)

(2020/C 414/45)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

General Court

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/28

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Spain and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-515/13 RENV and T-719/13 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain economic interest groupings (EIG) and their investors - Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) - Decision declaring the aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery in part - Selective nature - Obligation to state reasons - Recovery of the aid - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)

(2020/C 414/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant in Case T-515/13 RENV: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Applicants in Case T-719/13 RENV: Lico Leasing, SA (Madrid, Spain) Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, SA (Madrid) (represented by: M. Merola and M. Sánchez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in Case T-719/13 RENV in support of the applicants: Bankia, SA (Valencia, Spain) and the other 32 interveners whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Re:

Actions based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2014/200/EU of 17 July 2013 on the aid scheme SA.21233 C/11 (ex NN/11, ex CP 137/06) implemented by Spain — Tax scheme applicable to certain finance lease agreements also known as the Spanish Tax Lease System (OJ 2014 L 114, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the actions;

2.	Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission before the Court of Justice in Case C-128/16 P and before the General Court in Cases T-515/13 and T-515/13 RENV;

3.	Orders Lico Leasing, SA and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission before the Court of Justice in Case C-128/16 P and before the General Court in Cases T-719/13 and T-719/13 RENV;

4.	Orders Bankia, SA, the other interveners whose names are set out in the annex and Aluminios Cortizo, SAU to bear their own costs incurred in the proceedings referred back to the General Court.

(1) OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/29

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-381/15 RENV) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Development cooperation - Implementation of the EU budget under indirect management - Decision suspending the applicant’s ability to conclude new delegation agreements for indirect management with the Commission - Unlawfulness - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Application for injunctive relief - Late submission of application - Modification of the nature of the reparation sought - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 414/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Norris, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s decision, in its letter of 8 May 2015, not to conclude new delegation agreements for indirect management with the applicant ‘until there was absolute certainty regarding [its] status as an international organisation’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action for damages;

2.	Orders each party to bear its own costs in respect of the proceedings before the General Court.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/29

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Spain and Italy v Commission

(Joined Cases T-401/16 and T-443/16) (1)

(Language regime - Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of Investigators and Team leaders - Language skills - Limitation of the choice of second language in the competitions to German, English and French - Eliminatory language-comprehension test in English - Language of communication - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service - Proportionality)

(2020/C 414/48)

Languages of the cases: Spanish and Italian

Parties

Applicant in case T-401/16: Kingdom of Spain (represented by S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Applicant in case T-443/16: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented in case T-401/16 by G. Gattinara, D. Milanowska and N. Ruiz García, and in case T-443/16, by G. Gattinara and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/323/16 for the constitution of reserve lists of administrators performing the duties of investigators (AD 7) for the following profiles: ‘1 — Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption — 2 — Investigators: Customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeited goods’ and EPSO/AD/324/16 for the constitution of a reserve list of administrators performing the following duties: ‘Investigators (AD 9): Team leaders’ (OJ 2016 C 187 A, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/323/16 for the constitution of reserve lists of administrators performing the duties of investigators (AD 7) for the following profiles: ‘1 — Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption — 2 — Investigators: Customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeited goods’ and EPSO/AD/324/16 for the constitution of a reserve list of administrators performing the following duties: ‘Investigators (AD 9): Team leaders’;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in Case T-401/16, and those incurred by the Italian Republic in Case T-443/16.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/30

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission

(Case T-249/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Plea of illegality against Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Right to an effective remedy - Equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons - Right to inviolability of the home - Sufficiently strong evidence - Proportionality)

(2020/C 414/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Casino, Guichard-Perrachon (Saint-Étienne, France) and Achats Marchandises Casino SAS (AMC), formerly EMC Distribution (Vitry-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: D. Théophile, I. Simic, O. de Juvigny, T. Reymond, A. Sunderland and G. Aubron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, A. Dawes and I. Rogalski, acting as Agents, and by F. Ninane, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, S. Petrova and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1054 (final) of 9 February 2017 ordering Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT. 40466 — Tute 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1054 (final) of 9 February 2017 ordering Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1);

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino SAS (AMC), the European Commission and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/31

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission

(Case T-254/17) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Plea of illegality of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Right to an effective remedy - Equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons - Right to inviolability of the home - Reasonable grounds - Evidence of participation in the suspected infringements - Proportionality)

(2020/C 414/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Intermarché Casino Achats (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Utzschneider and J. Jourdan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, A. Dawes and I. Rogalski, acting as Agents, and by F. Ninane, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, S. Petrova and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1056 final of 9 February 2017, ordering the applicant and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Article 1(b) of Decision C(2017) 1056 final of 9 February 2017, ordering Intermarché Casino Achats and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1);

2.	Dismisses the action for the remainder;

3.	Orders Intermarché Casino Achats, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/32

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission

(Case T-255/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Administrative procedure - Decisions ordering an inspection - Plea of illegality against Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Right to an effective remedy - Obligation to state reasons - Right to inviolability of the home - Sufficiently strong evidence - Proportionality - Action for annulment - Complaints relating to manner of conduction the inspection - Refusal to protect the confidentiality of data relating to private life - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 414/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Les Mousquetaires (Paris, France) and ITM Entreprises (Paris) (represented by: N. Jalabert-Doury, B. Chemama and K. Mebarek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, A. Dawes and I. Rogalski, acting as Agents, and by F. Ninane, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, S. Petrova and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment, first, principally, of Commission Decision C(2017) 1361 (final) of 21 February 2017 ordering Les Mousquetaires and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT. 40466 — Tute 1) and Commission Decision C(2017) 1360 (final) of 21 February 2017 ordering Les Mousquetaires and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40467 — Tute 2) and, in the alternative, of Commission Decision C(2017)1057 (final) of 9 February 2017 ordering Intermarché and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1) and Commission Decision C(2017) 1061 (final) of 9 February 2017 ordering Intermarché and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40467) — Tute 2); and, second, of the decision by which the Commission (i) seized and copied the data held on communication and storage tools containing data concerning the private life of the users of those tools; and (ii) rejected the applicants’ request for the return of those data.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1057 (final) of 9 February 2017 ordering Intermarché and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1) and Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1361 (final) of 21 February 2017 ordering Les Mousquetaires and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1);

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/33

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement v Commission

(Case T-380/17) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Market for grey cement in Croatia - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Undertakings concerned - Relevant market - Substantial part of the internal market - Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition - Commitments - Rights of the defence - Partial referral to the national authorities)

(2020/C 414/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) and Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler, U. Soltész, M. Raible and G. Wecker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Duna-Dráva Cement Kft. (Vác, Hungary) (represented by: C. Bán and Á. Papp, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission decision C(2017) 1650 final of 5 April 2017 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders HeidelbergCement AG and Schwenk Zement KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders Duna-Dráva Cement Kft. to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/33

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — VE v ESMA

(Cases T-77/18 and T-567/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Appraisal report - 2016 appraisal exercise - Plea of illegality relating to the appraisals guide - Manifest error of assessment - Assessment of activities undertaken as staff representative - Procedural irregularity - Termination of the work contract - Insufficient performance during a period of two years)

(2020/C 414/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VE (represented by L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (represented by: A. Lorenzet and N. Vasse, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Applications based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period starting on 1 January 2016 and ending on 31 December 2016, of the decision of 14 November 2017 terminating his temporary agent contract and of the decisions rejecting his complaints against those acts and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Joins Cases T-77/18 and T-567/18 for the purposes of the judgment;

2.	Annuls VE’s appraisal report for the period starting on 1 January 2016 and ending 31 December 2016;

3.	Annuls the decision of 14 November 2017 terminating VE’s temporary agent contract;

4.	Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

5.	Orders the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/34

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Brown v Commission

(Case T-18/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Official with United Kingdom nationality at the date of entering the service - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Acquisition of the nationality of the country of employment during the course of a career - Loss of the expatriation allowance - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

(2020/C 414/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colin Brown (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. Van Damme, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 19 March 2018 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) withdrawing the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance and to the payment of travel expenses and, secondly, re-establishment of those benefits with effect from 1 December 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Colin Brown and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs;

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

(1) OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/35

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — nanoPET Pharma v EUIPO — Miltenyi Biotec (viscover)

(Case T-264/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark viscover - Absence of bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) - Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2020/C 414/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: nanoPET Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken and A. Schulz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miltenyi Biotec BV & Co. KG, formerly Miltenyi Biotec GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 (Case R 1288/2017-5), concerning invalidity proceedings between nanoPET Pharma and Miltenyi Biotec.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders nanoPET Pharma GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/35

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Arbuzov v Council

(Case T-289/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State respected the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 414/56)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Pekař and P. Mahnič, Agents)

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

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

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/36

Action brought on 9 August 2020 — LE v Commission

(Case T-475/20)

(2020/C 414/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LE (represented by: M. Straus, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the Commission C(2020) 3988 final, of 9 June 2020, and the decision and debit notes in relation thereto and its execution and implementation by the Commission and possible authorised bodies pursuant to Article 299 TFEU;

—	ruling or take such other measures as the General Court shall deem just and appropriate; and,

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings including the lawyer’s fees.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following grounds.

Lapse of time and non-assessment of relevant facts:

—

the Commission took more than 5 years without full transparency on the reviews and its refusal to allow the applicant to submit additional requests and/or to comply with its requests for information and motivation. The reporting done by the Commission was incomplete, not accurate and not in compliance with the legislation of the evaluation, review and control of subsidies.

Equal treatment and transparency:

—	the termination of the agreement lacked any valid ground, and the fact that the any termination was not foreseen in the agreement, was ignored by the Commission.

Principles of good governance:

—	the Commission did not act according to the principles of good governance i.e. the responsible conduct of public affairs and management of public resources.

Lack of sufficient motivation and equal treatment:

—	the decision and the decision in relation thereto lack a solid and accurate motivation and lack transparency and openness. Actions were next thereto performed against the principle of equal treatment.

Principle of good administration:

—	the Commission has limited itself to refer constantly to its previous decisions which were equally unmotivated and not based upon the principle of good administration and other principles referred to. So, this does not sufficiently comply with the principles of decision making.

Lack of information:

—	the applicant did not receive any reports and reviews, including a full copy of the audit reports, so that it has not been enabled to review and assess the calculations, findings and motivation made.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/37

Action brought on 21 September 2020 — Genekam Biotechnology v Commission

(Case T-579/20)

(2020/C 414/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Genekam Biotechnology AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Hertwig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the defendant’s Decision C(2020) 5548 final of 7 August 2020 in so far as it claims more than EUR 39 827,83 plus default interest;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 5548 final of 7 August 2020 on the recovery of the amount of EUR 119 659,55 owed by Genekam Biotechnology AG.

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU on the ground that the European Commission lacked standing.

—

The European Commission has no standing. As is apparent from Commission Enforcement Decision C(2020) 5548 final of 7 August 2020, as well as Annex II, Part B, Section 2, II.19.3 of the Grant Agreement, it is acting on behalf of the Participant Guarantee Fund and/or as its ‘executive agent’. Thus, the European Commission is not itself entitled to enforce the claim and therefore also not entitled to request a payment in itself.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU on the ground of breach of the principle of legality.

—

The Guarantee Fund cannot avail itself of any basis to adopt the enforcement decision in dispute. That is because Article 299 TFEU at most authorises the Commission, but not the Guarantee Fund to act by means of an enforceable decision. The applicant further alleges that Article 299 TFEU, taken separately, is not a sufficient basis for the adoption of enforceable decisions. That is because the authority of the institutions concerned to adopt such an act must be derived from other provisions.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU on the ground that there was no claim for repayment under Annex II, Part B, Section 2, II.20 of the Grant Agreement.

—	According to the provisions of the Grant Agreement, the defendant is not entitled to recover the expenditure notified by the applicant, incurred in the first year of the project. That is because the costs are eligible and must therefore be recognised.

—

Nor can it be argued that the applicant, after leaving the FIBROGELNET-project, was not entitled to reimbursement of costs since, on account of numerous breaches of procedure concerning a beneficiary’s leaving the consortium under Annex II, Part B, Section 2, II.35 and seq., the applicant’s participation in the FIBROGELNET-project was not terminated effectively and the coordinator had repeatedly confirmed to the applicant, prior to it allegedly leaving the project, that the costs are eligible expenditure in accordance with Annex II, Part B, Section 2, II.14 of the Grant Agreement. The applicant may therefore lawfully rely on receiving the costs.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/38

Action brought on 7 October 2020 — KC v Commission

(Case T-580/20)

(2020/C 414/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KC (represented by: L. Frölich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Order the European Union to pay to the applicant compensation for material harm (distinct interest and damages) of an amount of EUR 330 000 per diem as from 1 June 2020 (inclusive) until the date of adoption of a decision by the European Commission, in the file [confidential], (1) consistent with the operative parts and principles of the judgments in Dilly’s Wellnesshotel C-493/14 of 21 July 2016 and Eesti Pagar AS C-349/17 of 5 March 2019;

—

Order the European Union to pay to the applicant compensation for loss of opportunity of an amount of EUR 680 000 per diem as from 1 June 2020 (inclusive) until the date of adoption of a decision by the European Commission, in the file [confidential], consistent with the operative parts and principles of the judgments in Dilly’s Wellnesshotel C-493/14 of 21 July 2016 and Eesti Pagar AS C-349/17 of 5 March 2019;

—	Order the European Union to pay to the applicant compensation for non-material harm of an amount of EUR 10 354 869,92;

—	Order that the compensation referred to above be increased by default interest, as from the date of delivery of the present judgment until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

—	Order the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law based on the three cumulative conditions laid down in the case-law arising from the judgment of 8 November 2011, Idromacchine and Others v Commission, T-88/09, EU:T:2011:641, for the European Union to incur liability on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. That plea in law is divided into three parts.

In the first part, the applicant claims that it complained, in its complaints to the European Commission, of non-notified interventions by the French State in the form of capital invested in a fund managed by a company governed by private law enjoying exclusive and special rights for the purposes of Article 106(1) TFEU. It considers that the Commission failed to comply with the operative parts and principles set out in the judgments of 21 July 2016, Dilly’s Wellnesshotel, C-493/14, EU:C:2016:577, and of 5 March 2019, Eesti Pagar, C-349/17, EU:C:2019:172. According to the applicant, the Commission infringes, first, the principle of ‘lex posterior derogat legi priori’, second, the hierarchy of norms in Article 288 TFEU and, third, the principle of ‘lex specialis derogate legi generali’. Finally, the Commission infringed the applicant’s procedural rights by not opening the formal procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU after a reasonable period of time.

In the second part, the applicant asserts that it was denied the decisive and necessary legal effects which the opening of the formal procedure provide and which would have enabled it to show to the national courts the existence of an obligation to recover the illegal aid at issue. According to the applicant, this would have enabled it to obtain temporary measures designed in particular to deal with the urgency it faced due to the absence of sufficient income.

In the third part, the applicant considers that the direct and certain nature of the harm suffered is established, on the ground that the Commission’s unlawful conduct prevented it from obtaining from the French authorities the payment of the compensation to guarantee the payment of its banking commitments, which results in material harm, loss of opportunity and non-material harm, for which compensation may be recovered from the Union.

(1) Confidential data omitted.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/39

Action brought on 17 September 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 and Others v Commission

(Case T-582/20)

(2020/C 414/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 e.V. (Ighoga Region 10) (Ingolstadt, Germany), MJ and MK (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the defendant’s decision of 28 April 2020 on State aid SA.48582 (2017/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid in favour of Maritim Group and KHI Immobilien GmbH (Ingolstadt);

—	order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of their procedural rights under Article 1(h) of Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) because the defendant refused to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU.

This single plea is divided into four parts as follows:

First, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties concerning the direct advantages in favour of Maritim Group in connection with the operation of the Ingolstadt Congress Centre and Hotel because

—	despite specific evidence calling into question the regularity of the tender for the operation of the Ingolstadt Congress Centre, the defendant failed to carry out an independent assessment of this tender;

—	the defendant relied on an unlawful legal standard in the assessment of whether the leasing conditions were appropriate in market terms;

—	in addition, the defendant submitted an inappropriate criterion for the assessment of whether the leasing conditions were appropriate in market terms; and

—	finally, the defendant refused to use a suitable standard for the assessment of appropriateness in market terms.

2.	Second, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties concerning the direct advantages in favour of Maritim Group, because the defendant completely ignored the complaint and consequently committed numerous factual errors of assessment.

3.	Third, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties on account of the complete lack of any assessment of the subject matter of the complaint concerning alleged overcompensation of the Ingolstadt Congress Centre’s financing.

Fourth, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties following an incorrect assessment of the criterion of internationality for the purposes of the law on aid, because

—	the defendant assessed the application of the criteria in relation to the incorrect economic activity;

—	in so doing, it relied on an incorrect legal premiss;

—	it completely ignored the evidence in the complaint in support of its submissions that the criterion of internationality had been fulfilled; and

—	finally, it applied inappropriate and factually incorrect criteria.

(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).

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/40

Action brought on 25 September 2020 — MP v Commission

(Case T-588/20)

(2020/C 414/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MP (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of 9 February 2020 impliedly rejecting her request that her pension rights be fixed under the rules in force prior to 1 January 2014, confirmed by the decision of 12 February 2020;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging the infringement, by the contested decision, of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/41

Action brought on 30 September 2020 — MS v Commission

(Case T-602/20)

(2020/C 414/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: MS (represented by: M. Medla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in the form of the decision on the complaint;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against Decision PMO 4, TFT IN, 0425863600, of the European Commission, PMO — Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements, PMO 4 — Pensions and relations with former officials, of 3 December 2019, in the form of Decision HR.E.2/NX/sb/Ares of the European Commission, DG HR — Directorate General for Human Resources and Security, DIR E — Legal Affairs & Partnerships, Unit 2 — Appeals & Case Monitoring, of 30 June 2020, by which the applicant’s complaint against the contested decision was rejected.

The action is based on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of the Court of Justice of 12 May 2004 laying down general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

The applicant claims that the defendant incorrectly used as a basis for the calculation of the years of pensionable service to be credited the capital that was actually transferred and discounted by 3,9 % per annum to the day of the transfer application. According to the applicant, instead, the defendant should have used as a basis for this calculation the value, submitted by the national pension scheme provider, of the pension rights at the time of the transfer application. This would have led to a number of years of pensionable service to be credited that is over 20 % higher.

(1) Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1959-1962, p. 135).

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/41

Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case T-606/20)

(2020/C 414/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) and seven other applicants (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul, insofar as it affects the applicants, the contested decision;

—	annul Article 1 of Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 and Articles 3(3), 3(4)(b), 4(6), 6, 11(1)(c) and 12 of the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation;

—	order ACER to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this application, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 16 July 2020 in Case A-001-2020 (consolidated) dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation and, as relevant, of Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER and Annex I to that decision.

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law following the finding of the defendant’s Board of Appeal that the defendant had the competence to supplement and amend the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL (1) by taking a decision that departed from the agreed position of the national regulatory authorities, in breach of the principle of conferral and the ACER Regulation

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law through the failure of the defendant’s Board of Appeal to apply correctly the requirements for the design and operation of the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation, endorsing ACER’s amendment of the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration, the rights of defence and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board.

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6).

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/42

Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case T-607/20)

(2020/C 414/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) and seven other applicants (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul, insofar as it affects the applicants, the contested decision;

—	annul Article 1 of Decision No. 03/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 and Articles 3(3), 3(5)(b), 4(6), 6, 11(1)(c), 11(2)(c) and 12 of the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation;

—	order ACER to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this application, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 16 July 2020 in Case A-002-2020 (consolidated) dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No. 03/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation and, as relevant, of Decision No. 03/2020 of ACER and Annex I to that decision.

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law following the finding of the defendant’s Board of Appeal that the defendant had the competence to supplement and amend the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL (1), by taking a decision that departed from the agreed position of the national regulatory authorities, in breach of the principle of conferral and the ACER Regulation

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration, the rights of defence and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board.

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6).

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/43

Action brought on 2 October 2020 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case T-611/20)

(2020/C 414/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, G. Pandey, V. Villante and M. Pirovano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1215 of 21 August 2020 making imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration;

—	order measures of organisation of procedure and ask the Commission to produce its internal documents and analysis related to the preparatory work to the challenged Regulation and the relevant registration of imports;

—	order the defendant to bear the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 10(4) and 14(5) of the EU Basic antidumping Regulation as well as manifest error of assessment in the review and assessment of the evidence provided by the anti-dumping complainant to order the registration of imports. The applicant argues that the Commission based its findings related to the imposition of registration of imports foreseen by the challenged Regulation on evidence and data that are not reliable and not representative of the European Union market.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts in that the Commission did not assess adequately the presence of the relevant conditions to order registration of imports.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to be heard of the applicant, as well as a breach of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The applicant argues that its right to be heard has been compromised because he was not provided with the relevant methodology to assess the presence of dumping and could not comment on such methodology. The applicant also argues that the challenged Regulation is flawed in that it contains an incomplete motivation in that there is no clear explanation of the methodology uses to assess dumping as well as of why and how the Commission considered reliable evidence submitted by the anti-dumping complainant which at first sight is clearly unreliable.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/44

Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Standardkessel Baumgarte Holding v EUIPO (Standardkessel)

(Case T-617/20)

(2020/C 414/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Standardkessel Baumgarte Holding GmbH (Duisburg, Germany), (represented by J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark ‘Standardkessel’ — Application for registration No 18 017 986

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2020 in Case R 2665/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

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

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

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/45

Action brought on 9 October 2020 — Sun West and Others v Commission

(Case T-623/20)

(2020/C 414/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Sun West (Saint-Allouestre, France), JB Solar (Saint-Allouestre), Azimut56 (Saint-Allouestre) (represented by: S. Manna, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul Commission decision SA.40349 (2020/MI2) B2/AD/MKL/D*2020/091023 of 28 July 2020, rejecting their complaint of 2 March 2020 concerning State aid to photovoltaic energy producers by the French State under the pricing decrees of 10 July 2006 and 12 January and 31 August 2010, on the ground that:

—	the applicants must be classified as ‘interested parties’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, and that on that basis, under Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 they are entitled to submit a complaint to the Commission concerning illegal aid;

—	the Commission is required to open a preliminary examination without undue delay in respect of any complaint concerning illegal aid, in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589;

—	the Commission is required to ensure that the provisions of the TFEU relating to State aid are applied and cannot fail to act;

—	the applicants used the standard form provided for by Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 1(h) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 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, ‘Regulation 2015/1589’). The applicants argue in that regard that they have the status of ‘interested parties’.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589. The applicants submit that their complaint, having been submitted by an ‘interested party’, comes within the scope of that article.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 12(1) of Regulation 2015/1589, on the ground that the Commission was required under that provision to open a preliminary examination without undue delay in respect of any complaint concerning illegal aid.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the infringement of Articles 107, 108 and 109 TFEU and of Regulation 2015/1589. The applicants submit that the Commission is required to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to State aid are applied and cannot fail to act in the examination of a complaint concerning illegal aid.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 33 of Regulation 2015/1589. The applicants state in that regard that they used the standard form provided for by Article 33 of Regulation 2015/1589.

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/46

Action brought on 12 October 2020 — Landwärme v Commission

(Case T-626/20)

(2020/C 414/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landwärme GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Bonhage and M. Frank, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 4489 final of 29 June 2020 on State aid SA.56125 (2020/N) — ‘Sweden Prolongation and modification of scheme SA.49893 (2018/N)/Tax exemption for non-food based biogas and bio-propane in heat generation’ and SA. 56908 (2020/N) — ‘Sweden Prolongation and modification of biogas scheme for motor fuel in Sweden’; and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of the State aid.

—

The aid granted by the Kingdom of Sweden for biogas in heat generation and for use as motor fuel allows for a combination with aid from other EU Member States. In the case of biogas imports, this combination leads to overcompensation. Therefore, the aid is unlawful and the Commission’s approval decisions are void.

Second plea in law, alleging error of assessment.

—

In 2019, in a complaint to the Commission, the applicant referred to the problem of combining aid granted by the Kingdom of Sweden with aid from other EU Member States. The Commission failed to take into account that complaint in its assessment. In addition to the applicant’s complaint, the Commission also failed to take into account the extensive information publicly available concerning this problem. Since the Commission failed to investigate and assess the economic context of the aid granted by the Kingdom of Sweden for biogas in heat generation and for use as motor fuel, the applicant alleges an error of assessment. Therefore, the Commission’s approval decisions are void.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons.

—

In its approval decisions, the Commission fails to take into account the combination of aid granted by the Kingdom of Sweden with aid from other EU Member States. This constitutes a failure to state reasons and an infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU as well as Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Therefore, the Commission’s approval decisions are void.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an obligation to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

—

On account of the market conditions which have substantially changed since the initial approval, the Commission is obliged to substantiate its assessment of aid, by means of market information, in a formal investigation procedure. In addition, the Commission is obliged to initiate a formal investigation procedure, since it encountered significant difficulties in the assessment of aid granted by the Kingdom of Sweden. Failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure constitutes an infringement of Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1) Therefore, the Commission’s approval decisions are void.

(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).

30.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/47

Action brought on 16 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-628/20)

(2020/C 414/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 31 July 2020 on State aid SA. 57659 — Spain — Recapitalisation fund (1); and

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. By authorising Spain to reserve aid to undertakings established in Spain, the European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to the pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Spain. Article 107(3)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by violating the obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission deprived itself of its discretion in reviewing State aid and committed an error of law by allowing Spain to exercise discretion in selecting beneficiaries of the aid scheme.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2020 C 269, p. 8.