16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia

(Case C-521/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Tax inspection - Supply of services as an activity of an agent for performing artists - Transactions subject to VAT - Transactions not declared to the tax authority and not invoiced - Fraud - Reconstitution of the taxable amount for income tax purposes - Principle of VAT neutrality - Inclusion of VAT in the reconstituted taxable amount)

(2021/C 329/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CB

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Articles 73 and 78 thereof, read in the light of the principle of neutrality of value added tax (VAT), must be interpreted as meaning that, where taxable persons for VAT purposes, by fraud, have not indicated the existence of the transaction to the tax authority, issued invoices or shown the income generated during that transaction in a direct tax declaration, the reconstitution, as part of an inspection of that declaration, of the amounts paid and received during the transaction at issue by the tax authority concerned must be regarded as a price already including VAT, unless, under national law, the taxable persons have the possibility of subsequently passing on and deducting the VAT at issue, notwithstanding the fraud.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Association pour le droit des Étrangers ASBL, Coordination et Initiatives pour et avec les Réfugiés et Étrangers ASBL, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme ASBL, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen ASBL v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-718/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Decision to terminate a person’s residence on grounds of public policy - Preventive measures to avoid any risk of the person concerned absconding during the period allowed for that person to leave the territory of the host Member State - National provisions similar to those applicable to third-country nationals under Article 7(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC - Maximum period of detention for the purpose of removal - National provision identical to that applicable to third-country nationals)

(2021/C 329/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Association pour le droit des Étrangers ASBL, Coordination et Initiatives pour et avec les Réfugiés et Étrangers ASBL, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme ASBL, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen ASBL

Defendant: Conseil des ministres

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and 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, must be interpreted as:

—

not precluding national legislation which applies to Union citizens and their family members, during the period allowed for them to leave the territory of the host Member State following the adoption of an expulsion decision taken against them on grounds of public policy or during an extension of that period, provisions aimed at avoiding the risk of absconding that are similar to provisions whose purpose is, as regards third-country nationals, to transpose Article 7(3) of 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 into national law, provided that the former provisions respect the general principles laid down in Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 and are no less favourable than the latter provisions;

—

precluding national legislation which applies to Union citizens and their family members who, after the expiry of the period allowed for them to leave the territory or an extension of that period, have not complied with an expulsion decision taken against them on grounds of public policy or public security, a detention measure for a maximum period of detention of eight months for the purpose of removal, that period being identical to that applicable, in national law, to third-country nationals who have not complied with a return decision issued on such grounds pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UE, HC v Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

(Case C-301/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - European Certificate of Succession - Validity of a certified copy of the certificate not having an expiration date - Article 65(1) - Article 69 - Effects of the certificate as regards the persons who are designated on it but have not requested it to be issued - Article 70(3) - Date to take into account for the assessment of the validity of the copy - Evidential effects of the copy)

(2021/C 329/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: UE, HC

Defendant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Interested party: Estate of VJ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a certified copy of the European Certificate of Succession, bearing the words ‘unlimited duration’, is valid for a period of six months from the date of issue and produces its effects, within the meaning of Article 69 of that regulation, if it was valid when it was presented to the competent authority;

Article 65(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, read in conjunction with Article 69(3) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the effects of the European Certificate of Succession are produced with respect to all persons who are named therein, even if they have not themselves requested that it be issued.

(1) OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Criminal proceedings against D.B.

(Case C-150/21)

(2021/C 329/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Party to the main proceedings

D.B.

Questions referred

Does a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty issued by the Netherlands central administrative authority determined pursuant to Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, (1) against which an appeal may be lodged with the public prosecutor’s office, which is subject in organisational terms to the Ministry of Justice, satisfy the criterion of ‘decision against which an appeal may be lodged with a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters’ for the purposes of Article 1(a)(ii) of the Framework Decision?

Can the criterion that a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty be amenable to judicial remedy before ‘a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters’ be deemed to have been satisfied where it is possible to lodge an appeal with a district court only at a later stage of proceedings, that is to say after it has been dismissed by the public prosecutor, and, in some cases, entails a need to pay a charge equal to the penalty imposed?

(1) Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16–30).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni — AGCOM

(Case C-255/21)

(2021/C 329/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI)

Respondent: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni — AGCOM

Questions referred

For the purposes of the Community rules prohibiting excessive advertising, and given the general relevance under [EU] law of the concept of the group or single economic entity, which may be gleaned from numerous sources of anti-trust law (and, in so far as is relevant here, from recital 43 of Directive 2018/1808/EU (1) and from the new wording of Article 23 of Directive 2010/13/[EU]), (2) and notwithstanding the differences which exist under Italian domestic law between the licences [provided for by] Article 5(1)(b) of Legislative Decree No 177/[2005] for television broadcasters and radio broadcasters, is it consistent with Community law to interpret national law on broadcasting in the sense that Article 1(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 177/[2005], as amended, in the current wording of 30 March 2010 (implementing Directive 2007/65/EC), (3) implies that the process of convergence of the various forms of communication (electronic communications, publishing, including electronic publishing, and the Internet, in all its applications) is all the more applicable among suppliers of television and radio media, especially when they are already integrated into a connected group of undertakings, and applies generally, with the resulting consequences for the interpretation of Article 38(6) of the abovementioned [legislative decree], such that the ‘broadcaster’ may also be the group, as a single economic entity, or on the contrary, in accordance with the abovementioned Community principles and given the independence of the matter of the prohibition on excessive advertising from general anti-trust law, is it not permissible to ascribe relevance, prior to 2018, to the group or to the abovementioned process of convergence and so-called cross-mediality, such that, for the purposes of calculating the limits on advertising broadcasting time, regard is to be had solely to the individual broadcaster, even if it is part of a group (for the reason that such relevance is mentioned only in the consolidated wording of Article 23 of Directive 2010/13/[EU] resulting from Directive 2018/1808/EU)?

In the light of the abovementioned principles of EU law concerning groups and undertakings as a single economic unity, for the purposes of the prohibition on excessive advertising and the supervening versions of Article 23 [of Directive 2010/13/EU], and notwithstanding the abovementioned differences between licences, may it be inferred from the anti-competitive rules of the [integrated communications system] referred to in Article 43 of Legislative Decree No 177/[2005], that the concept of a group ‘media service provider’ (or, to use the appellant’s words, a ‘group publishing undertaking’) is relevant for the purposes of the exemption of intra-group cross-medial promotional announcements from the limits on advertising broadcasting time mentioned in Article 38(6) of Legislative Decree [No 177/2005], or on the contrary, must such relevance be excluded, prior to 2018, given the independence of television anti-trust law from the rules governing the limits on advertising broadcasting time?

Does the new wording of Article 23(2)(a) of Directive 2010/13/EU recognise a pre-existing principle of antitrust law according to which the group is generally relevant, or is it innovative, and so, if it is the former, does the new wording describe a legal reality already inherent in EU law — such as will apply even to the case under consideration, which pre-dates the new wording, and such as to affect the interpretations adopted by the [national regulatory authority] and require it in any event to acknowledge the concept of group ‘media service provider’ — or if it is the latter, does the new wording preclude recognition of the relevance of the corporate group in cases arising prior to the introduction of that wording, for the reason that, being innovative in scope, it is inapplicable ratione temporis to situations arising prior to its introduction?

In any event, and leaving aside the licensing scheme established by Article 5 of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 and the novelty of [the version of] Article 23 [of Directive 2010/13/EU] introduced in 2018, or in the event that, according to the answer to question [3], the new provision is innovative, rather than recognitive, are the integrating relationships between television and radio — considered generally under antitrust law — because of the general and transversal applicability of the concepts of economic entity and of group, the key to interpreting the limits on advertising broadcasting time, which thus apply with implicit regard to the group undertaking (or, more precisely, to the relationships of control which exist between the undertakings of the group) and to the functional unity of such undertakings, with the result that the intragroup promotion of television and radio programmes […], or on the contrary, are such integrating relationships irrelevant in the matter of the limits on advertising broadcasting time, such that it must be held that the ‘own’ programmes referred to in (the original version of) Article 23 [of Directive 2010/13/EU] are [the broadcaster’s own] in the sense that they belong solely to the broadcaster which promotes them, rather than to the corporate group as a whole, for the reason that that provision is self-sanding and does not permit of a systemic interpretation such that it might apply to the group considered as a single economic entity?

Lastly, even if it cannot be interpreted as a rule to be construed against the background of antitrust law, is Article 23 [of Directive 2010/13/EU], in its original version, to be understood in any case as an incentivising provision which describes the peculiar characteristic of promotion, which is exclusively informative and is not intended to persuade anyone to purchase goods or services other than the programmes promoted and, as such, is it to be understood as falling outside the scope of the rules on excessive advertising, and therefore applicable, within the limits of undertakings belonging to the same group, at least in the case of integrated cross-medial promotion, or is it to be understood as a derogation from, and an exception to, the calculation of [the limits on] advertising broadcasting and, as such, as a rule to be interpreted strictly?

(1) Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities (OJ 2018 L 303, p. 69).

(2) Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).

(3) Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 332, p. 27).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2021 — Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos (AMETIC) v Administración General del Estado, Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Propiedad Intelectual (ADEPI), Artistas, Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE), Artistas Intérpretes, Sociedad de Gestión (AISGE), Ventanilla Única Digital, Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO), Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI) and Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE)

(Case C-263/21)

(2021/C 329/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (AMETIC)

Defendants: Administración General del Estado, Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Propiedad Intelectual (ADEPI), Artistas, Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE), Artistas Intérpretes, Sociedad de Gestión (AISGE), Ventanilla Única Digital, Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO), Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI) and Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE)

Questions referred

1.	Is the form of composition of the legal person provided for in paragraph 10 of the new Article 25 of the Ley de Propiedad Intelectual (Law on Intellectual Property) compatible with Directive 2001/29/EC (1) or, more generally, with the general principles of EU law?

Is it compatible with Directive 2001/29/EC or with the general principles of EU law for national legislation to confer on the aforementioned legal person powers to request information, including accounting information, from those applying for a certificate of exemption from the obligation to pay compensation for private copying?

(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).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Confederación Nacional de Autoescuelas (CNAE) and Others v Asociación para la Defensa de los Intereses Comunes de las Autoescuelas (AUDICA) and Others

(Case C-292/21)

(2021/C 329/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Administración General del Estado, Confederación Nacional de Autoescuelas (CNAE), UTE CNAE-ITT-FORMASTER-ECT

Defendants: Asociación para la Defensa de los Intereses Comunes de las Autoescuelas (AUDICA), Ministerio Fiscal

Question referred

Is a national provision pursuant to which contracts for the provision of road safety awareness and training courses for the purposes of the recovery of driving licence points must be awarded by means of a public service concession compatible with Directive 2006/123/EC, (1) or, as the case may be, with other provisions or principles of European Union law?

(1) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 10 May 2021 — S. C. Techno-Gaz K.F.T. PAKS v U. A. T. Comuna Dalnic

(Case C-298/21)

(2021/C 329/11)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant– respondent: S. C. Techno-Gaz K.F.T. PAKS

Defendant — appellant: U. A. T. Comuna Dalnic

Question referred

Do the principle of the freedom to provide services under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 25 of Directive 2004/18 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, (1) and the principles of free and fair competition between economic operators and proportionality, which are specific to European Union law, preclude national legislation on public contracts, such as the Romanian rules laid down in Article 96(1) of [Hotărârea Guvernului (Government Decree)] No 925/2006, which provide that, where certain parts of a public contract are to be performed by one or more subcontractors, the contracts produced must be consistent with the tender and will form an integral part, in the annex, of the public contract, interpreted as meaning that the subcontracted services must be of the same value/price as that stipulated in the main contract for the services in question?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 11 May 2021 — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia, Curtea de Apel Cluj, Tribunalul Bihor, Tribunalul Satu Mare and Tribunalul Sălaj v YF, KP, OJ, YS, SL, DB and SH

(Case C-301/21)

(2021/C 329/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants and defendants at first instance: Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia, Curtea de Apel Cluj, Tribunalul Bihor, Tribunalul Satu Mare and Tribunalul Sălaj

Respondents and applicants at first instance: YF, KP, OJ, YS, SL, DB and SH

Other parties to the proceedings: Tribunalul Cluj and Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

Questions referred

Must Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) which ensures that judicial procedures are ‘available to all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them’, and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees the right to ‘an effective remedy [and] a fair … hearing’, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that laid down in Article 211(c) of Legea dialogului social nr. 62/2011 (Law No 62/2011 on social dialogue), which provides that the three-year time limit for bringing a claim for compensation runs ‘from the date on which the damage occurred’, irrespective of whether or not the claimants were aware of the occurrence of the damage (and the extent thereof)?

Must Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, together with Article 3(1)(c), in fine, of that directive, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that laid down in Article 1(2) of Legea-cadru nr. 330 din 5 noiembrie 2009 privind salarizarea unitară a personalului plătit din fonduri publice (Framework Law No 330 of 5 November 2009 on the uniform remuneration of staff paid from the public purse), as interpreted by Decision No 7/2019 (published in Monitorul Oficial al României — Official Journal of Romania — No 343 of 6 May 2019), given by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), ruling on an appeal on a point of law, in circumstances in which the claimants did not have the legal possibility of requesting an increase in their employment allowance on entering the judiciary at a date after the entry into force of [Framework Law No 330/2009], a legislative act which expressly provided that remuneration rights are to be and remain exclusively as provided in [that] law, thus creating remuneration discrimination as compared with their colleagues, including on the basis of the criterion of age, which means in fact that only older judges, who were appointed before January 2010 (who benefited from court rulings in the period from 2006 to 2009, the operative parts of which were subject to interpretation in 2019 pursuant to Decision [No 7/2019 of the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice)]), received retroactive payment of remuneration rights (similar to those sought in the action which forms the subject matter of the present proceedings) during December 2019 and January 2020, in respect of the period from 2010 to 2015, even though during that period the claimants also acted as judges and performed the same work, under the same conditions and in the same institution?

Must the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC be interpreted as precluding discrimination only where it is based on one of the criteria referred to in Article 1 of that directive or, on the contrary, do those provisions, possibly supplemented by other provisions of EU law, generally preclude one employee from being treated differently from another, in respect of remuneration, where he or she performs the same work, for the same employer, [during the] same period, and under the same conditions?

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 May 2021 — Komisia za zashtita na lichnite danni, Tsentralna izbiratelna komisia v Koalitsia ‘Demokratichna Bulgaria — Оbedinenie’

(Case C-306/21)

(2021/C 329/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation: Komisia za zashtita na lichnite danni, Tsentralna izbiratelna komisia

Respondent in cassation: Koalitsia ‘Demokratichna Bulgaria — Оbedinenie’

Questions referred

Is Article 2(2)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as precluding the application of that regulation to an ostensibly purely internal situation, such as the holding of elections to the National Assembly, where the subject matter of the protection is the personal data of individuals — citizens of the European Union — and the data processing operations are not restricted to the collection of data in the context of the activity in question?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the conclusion of the holding of elections to the National Assembly, which do not appear to fall within the scope of EU law, release controllers, processors and persons who store personal data from their obligations under the regulation, as the sole means of protecting personal data of EU citizens at EU level? Does the applicability of the regulation depend solely on the activity for which the personal data were produced or collected, thereby also leading to the conclusion that its subsequent applicability is precluded?

If the first question is answered in the negative, do Article 6[(1)](e) of the General Data Protection Regulation and the principle of proportionality enshrined in recitals 4 and 129 thereof preclude national rules implementing the regulation, such as those at issue, which preclude and restrict from the outset the possibility of carrying out any video recording during the determination of the election results at polling stations, do not allow for differentiation and regulation of individual elements of the recording process and preclude the possibility of achieving the objectives of the regulation — the protection of personal data of individuals — by other means?

Alternatively, and in the context of the scope of application of EU law, do Article 6[(1)](e) of the General Data Protection Regulation and the principle of proportionality enshrined in recitals 4 and 129 thereof preclude — in the holding of municipal elections and elections to the European Parliament — national rules implementing that regulation, such as those at issue, which preclude and restrict from the outset the possibility of carrying out any video recording during the determination of the election results at polling stations, do not differentiate and regulate individual elements of the recording process or even allow for such differentiation and regulation, and preclude the possibility of achieving the objectives of the regulation — the protection of personal data of individuals — by other means?

Does Article 6(1)(e) of the General Data Protection Regulation preclude the categorisation of the activities of ascertaining lawful conduct and determining the results of elections as a task carried out in the public interest which justifies a certain degree of interference, subject to the requirement of proportionality, with regard to the personal data of persons present at polling stations when they perform an official, public task which is regulated by law?

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the protection of personal data preclude the introduction of a national statutory prohibition on the collection and processing of personal data, which limits the possibility of carrying out ancillary activities consisting in the video recording of materials, objects or items which do not contain personal data, where the recording process potentially gives rise to the possibility of personal data also being collected during the video recording of persons present at polling stations who are carrying out an activity in the public interest at the relevant time?

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 14 May 2021 — KU and Others v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

(Case C-308/21)

(2021/C 329/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KU, OP, GC

Defendant: SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

Question referred

Does a delay of more than three hours to, or the cancellation of, a flight as a result of a breakdown of the supply of fuel at the airport of origin, in the case where that airport is responsible for the management of the fuel system, constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 May 2021 — Colt Technology Services SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Telecom Italia SpA, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero della Giustizia, Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma, Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Cagliari, Procura generale della Repubblica presso la Corte d’appello di Reggio Calabria, Vodafone Italia SpA v Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Procura Generale della Repubblica (presso Corte d’appello di Reggio Calabria), Procura della Repubblica di Cagliari, Procura della Repubblica (presso il Tribunale di Roma), Procura della Repubblica (presso il Tribunale di Locri)

(Case C-339/21)

(2021/C 329/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Colt Technology Services SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Telecom Italia SpA, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero della Giustizia, Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma, Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Cagliari, Procura generale della Repubblica presso la Corte d’appello di Reggio Calabria, Vodafone Italia SpA

Respondents: Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Procura Generale della Repubblica (presso Corte d’appello di Reggio Calabria), Procura della Repubblica di Cagliari, Procura della Repubblica (presso il Tribunale di Roma), Procura della Repubblica (presso il Tribunale di Locri)

Question referred

Do Articles 18, 26, 49, 54 and 55 TFEU, Articles 3 and 13 of Directive 2018/1972/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018, (1) and Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a provision of national law that delegates to the administrative authorities the task of determining the remuneration to be paid to telecommunications operators for the mandatory performance of activities ordered by the judicial authorities consisting in the interception of communication flows, where that provision does not require compliance with the principle of the full reimbursement of the costs actually incurred and duly documented by the operators in relation to those activities and, furthermore, requires that the administrative authorities achieve cost savings compared to previous criteria for calculating remuneration?

(1) Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast) (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 June 2021 — VB v Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-340/21)

(2021/C 329/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: VB

Respondent in cassation: Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

Are Articles 24 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data within the meaning of point 12 of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 by persons who are not employees of the controller’s administration and are not subject to its control is sufficient for the presumption that the technical and organisational measures implemented are not appropriate?

If the first question is answered in the negative, what should be the subject matter and scope of the judicial review of legality in the examination as to whether the technical and organisational measures implemented by the controller are appropriate pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679?

If the first question is answered in the negative, is the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) and Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, read in conjunction with recital 74 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that, in legal proceedings under Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the controller bears the burden of proving that the technical and organisational measures implemented are appropriate pursuant to Article 32 of that regulation? Can the obtaining of an expert’s report be regarded as a necessary and sufficient means of proof to establish whether the technical and organisational measures implemented by the controller were appropriate in a case such as the present one, where the unauthorised access to, and disclosure of, personal data are the result of a ‘hacking attack’?

Is Article 82(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to be interpreted as meaning that unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data within the meaning of point 12 of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 by means of, as in the present case, a ‘hacking attack’ by persons who are not employees of the controller’s administration and are not subject to its control constitutes an event for which the controller is not in any way responsible and which entitles it to exemption from liability?

Is Article 82(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, read in conjunction with recitals 85 and 146 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as the present one, involving a personal data breach consisting in unauthorised access to, and dissemination of, personal data by means of a ‘hacking attack’, the worries, fears and anxieties suffered by the data subject with regard to a possible misuse of personal data in the future fall per se within the concept of non-material damage, which is to be interpreted broadly, and entitle him or her to compensation for damage where such misuse has not been established and/or the data subject has not suffered any further harm?

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/13

Appeal brought on 24 June 2021 by Enrico Falqui against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, extended composition) of 5 May 2021 in Case T-695/19, Enrico Falqui v European Parliament

(Case C-391/21 P)

(2021/C 329/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Enrico Falqui (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside judgment No 1000680 of 5 May 2021 of the General Court of the European Union and, consequently, the letter of 8 July 2019 (and, if necessary, the draft decision and the opinion of the legal service on which the decision is based), order reimbursement of the sums unduly withheld from his pension and order the Parliament to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on five grounds:

First ground of appeal: Infringement of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning ‘implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’.

The appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 75 of the abovementioned decision. He claims that that article does not provide, as the Court states, that the ‘identical pension rule’ under Annex III to the PEAM rules would continue to apply with future effect to pensions already granted or accrued at the date of entry into force of the Statute and therefore that any downward amendment of the national pensions would have to be reflected in the pensions awarded by the Parliament, but rather, on the contrary, that pensions already awarded on the basis of that rule are inviolable in terms of their existence and value.

Second ground of appeal: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle of proportionality.

The appellant claims that the General Court erred in holding that the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality had not been infringed. As regards legitimate expectations, that principle was infringed by the interpretation given by the Parliament and the Court of the identical pension rule, which has already been contested in the context of the first ground of appeal, while, as regards the principle of proportionality, the Court incorrectly attached importance to the objective pursued by the Italian Chamber of Deputies by means of the adoption of Decision No 14/18 (decrease in pension expenditure borne from its budget), finding it to be legitimate, without taking into account that, in the present case, that purpose is irrelevant, since there is no connection between it and the sacrifice imposed on the appellant.

Third ground of appeal: Infringement of the principle that the EU institutions may not, by automatic reference, implement an unlawful national rule.

The appellant claims that the General Court erred in finding that the national rule was automatically applicable, regardless of the fact that it is unlawful under national law and without the EU institutions being entitled to examine that point. Rather, where an EU institution applies national rules by reference, the general principle regarding the relationship between legal orders applies, a principle under which the referring legal order may refer only to rules which are lawful in the legal order to which reference is being made, in their original legal context: if they are invalid they cannot be applied. Otherwise the appellant’s position would be left unprotected.

Fourth ground of appeal: Failure, in error, to take into consideration the internal rules arising from Judgment No 2/20 of the Jurisdiction Council of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, which came into force subsequently.

The appellant claims that the General Court did not take into consideration the fact that, as a result of Judgment No 2/20 of the Jurisdiction Council of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, currently, the national system — which the European Parliament seeks to apply — consists of two phases: the first consists in the recalculation of the pension in accordance with the general criteria set out in Decision 14/18, and the second consists in the application by the Offices of the Chamber of percentage increases of the pension at the request of the interested party on the basis of his or her economic situation and state of health. Such a system does not appear to be transferrable to the European level.

Fifth ground of appeal, relating to the requests held to be inadmissible at first instance, and the costs of proceedings.

The appellant maintains his request for the annulment, as far as is necessary, of the draft decision and of the opinion of the legal service on the basis of which the Parliament acted, as well as his request to be paid the sums meanwhile unduly withheld from his pension, and for the Parliament to be ordered to pay the costs of proceedings at first and second instance.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/15

Appeal brought on 29 June 2021 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-543/19 Romania v Commission

(Case C-401/21 P)

(2021/C 329/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, L.-E. Baţagoi, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Romania claims that the Court should:

—

allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-543/19 in its entirety, re-hear Case T-543/19, upholding the action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4027 final, inasmuch as the Commission applied a co-financing rate of 75 %, not 85 %, for priority axes 1 and 2 of the operational programme,

—

allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-543/19 in its entirety and refer Case T-543/19 back to the General Court which, in re-hearing the case, is to uphold the action for annulment and annul in part Commission Decision C(2019) 4027 final, inasmuch as the Commission applied a co-financing rate of 75 %, not 85 %, for priority axes 1 and 2 of the operational programme;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, Romania relies on three grounds:

Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 139(6)(a) of Regulation 1303/2013 read in conjunction with Article 137(1)(a) and (d) and (2), Article 131, Article 135(2) and Article 139(1), (2) and (7) of that regulation

Romania submits that the General Court made several errors of law as regards the distinction between the final application for interim payment and the acceptance of accounts, in unduly disregarding the role of that latter stage and taking the view that the co-financing rate applicable for calculating the amount chargeable is that in force at the time of submission of the final application for interim payment.

Misinterpretation and misapplication of the accounting principle of annuality

Romania submits that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the accounting principle of annuality, when it established that to apply to the expenditure carried out in the course of an accounting year, and entered in the accounting system, a co-financing rate adopted after the final application for interim payment was submitted would be tantamount to infringing the principle of annuality.

Misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of non-retroactivity

Romania submits that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of non-retroactivity, when it established that the co-financing rate provided for by implementing decision C(2018)8890 final of 12 December 2018 does not apply to the expenditure carried out in the course of the accounting year 2017-2018, since the legal situation of Romania had already become established when that rate entered into force — 12 December 2018 — in the sense that the accounting year had concluded on 30 June 2018, and the final application for interim payment was sent on 6 July 2018.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/16

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission

(Case T-226/18) (1)

(REACH - Updating of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning restrictions on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of certain dangerous substances, mixtures and articles - Restrictions concerning octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) - Manifest error of assessment - Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006 - Weight-of-evidence determination - Article 68 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Unacceptable risk - Proportionality - Essential procedural requirements)

(2021/C 329/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Global Silicones Council (Washington, DC, United States), Wacker Chemie AG (Munich, Germany), Momentive Performance Materials GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany), Shin-Etsu Silicones Europe BV (Almere, Netherlands), Elkem Silicones France SAS (Lyon, France) (represented by: A. Kołtunowska and R. Semail, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicants: American Chemistry Council, Inc. (ACC) (Washington) (represented by: K. Nordlander and C. Grobecker, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs, S. Eisenberg, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and by C. Banner and A. Parkinson, Barristers), European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and A. Maceroni, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and A. Hautamäki, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/35 of 10 January 2018 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (‘D4’) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (‘D5’) (OJ 2018 L 6, p. 45).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Global Silicones Council, Wacker Chemie AG, Momentive Performance Materials GmbH, Shin-Etsu Silicones Europe BV and Elkem Silicones France SAS to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and American Chemistry Council, Inc. (ACC) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/17

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Global Silicones Council and Others v ECHA

(Case T-519/18) (1)

(REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Entry of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexsiloxane (D6) in that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006 - Weight-of-evidence determination - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 329/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Global Silicones Council (Washington, DC, United States) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: R. Cana and D. Abrahams, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and A. Hautamäki, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: American Chemistry Council, Inc. (ACC) (Washington) (represented by: K. Nordlander and C. Grobecker, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment in whole or in part of the decision of ECHA of 27 June 2018 including octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexsiloxane (D6) in the Candidate List for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Global Silicones Council and the other parties listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

3.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the European Commission and American Chemistry Council, Inc. (ACC) each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/18

Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Moi v Parliament

(Case T-17/19) (1)

(Institutional law - European Parliament - Psychological harassment - Decisions of the President of the Parliament finding that two accredited parliamentary assistants suffered harassment and imposing on a Member of Parliament the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 12 days - Rules 11 and 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Internal appeal - Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament confirming the penalty - Rule 167 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Action for annulment - Time limit for bringing an action - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Non-contractual liability)

(2021/C 329/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giulia Moi (Italy) (represented by: M. Pisano and P. Setzu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian, S. Seyr and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, principally, application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of various measures adopted in connection with a procedure initiated against the applicant finding that harassment occurred and imposing a penalty and, in the alternative, application for a finding that the penalty imposed on her is excessive and/or disproportionate and for its replacement by the penalty laid down in Rule 166(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU for an order that the Parliament pay her compensation and that the President communicate that information publicly in the plenary session of the Parliament.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 2 October 2018 classifying as psychological harassment the behaviour of Mrs Giulia Moi towards two of her accredited parliamentary assistants, the decision of the President of the Parliament of 2 October 2018 imposing on Mrs Moi, as a penalty for her behaviour towards two of her accredited parliamentary assistants, classified as psychological harassment, the forfeiture of entitlement to her daily subsistence allowance for a period of 12 days and the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 12 November 2018 concerning the complaint lodged by Mrs Moi on 16 October 2018 in accordance with Rule 167 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/18

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-265/19) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Italy - Clearance of the accounts - Conformity clearance - Financial corrections - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Risk of financial loss - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Primary administrative or judicial finding - Existence of an irregularity)

(2021/C 329/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and R. Giuzzi, A. Giordano and L. Vignato, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, J. Aquilina and F. Moro, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 12 February 2019 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2019 L 44, p. 14), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 12 February 2019 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as excludes from EU financing expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic, amounting to EUR 305 122,74;

2.	Dismisses the action for the remainder;

3.	Orders the Italian Republic and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/19

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with a brush)

(Case T-624/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a handgrip with a brush - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Welter’s Co. Ltd (Douliu, Taiwan) (represented by: T. Meinke, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 (Case R 2428/2018-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a handgrip with a brush as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Welter’s Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/20

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro and Others v Commission

(Case T-635/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - State aid - Banking sector - Planned recapitalisation by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members - Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State - Waiver of rescue and initiation of a resolution procedure - Directives 2014/49/EU and 2014/59/EU - Decision not to raise objections - Requests for information and positions adopted by the Commission during the preliminary examination stage - No causal link)

(2021/C 329/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro (Pesaro, Italy), Montani Antaldi Srl (Pesaro), Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano (Fano, Italy), Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi (Jesi, Italy), Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata (Macerata, Italy) (represented by: A. Sandulli and B. Cimino, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, I. Barcew, A. Bouchagiar and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants inter alia on account of unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission preventing the rescue of Banca delle Marche.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, Montani Antaldi Srl, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi and Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/20

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings v EUIPO (Combination of sounds on opening a can of soft drink)

(Case T-668/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a combination of sounds on opening a can of soft drink - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings GmbH & Co. KG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Hanf and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 (Case R 530/2019-2), concerning an application for registration of a combination of sounds on opening a can of soft drink as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs incurred before the General Court;

3.	Orders Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs incurred before the General Court and the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/21

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Skyliners v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLINERS)

(Case T-15/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SKYLINERS - Earlier EU word marks SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 41(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Entitlement to file the opposition)

(2021/C 329/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skyliners GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Zalewska, lawyer, and A. Brackenbury, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2019 (Case R 798/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and Skyliners.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 October 2019 (Case R 798/2018-4);

2.	Orders EUIPO and Sky Ltd to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay jointly those incurred by Skyliners GmbH.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/22

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Zoom v EUIPO — Facetec (ZOOM)

(Case T-204/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark ZOOM - Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 329/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoom KK (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Zajfert, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Facetec, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 (Case R 507/2019 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Zoom KK and Facetec.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Zoom KK to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/22

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE BARCELONA)

(Case T-227/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BIOVÈNE BARCELONA - Earlier EU word mark BIORENE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biovene Cosmetics, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 (Case R 1661/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugène Perma France and Biovene Cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Biovene Cosmetics, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/23

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE)

(Case T-232/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark BIOVÈNE - Earlier EU word mark BIORENE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biovene Cosmetics, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 (Case R 739/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugène Perma France and Biovene Cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Biovene Cosmetics, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/23

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Arbuzov v Council

(Case T-267/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 329/30)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: V. Rytikov, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 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) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 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 the name of Mr Sergej Arbuzov was 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 222, 6.7.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/24

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-268/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 329/31)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 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) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 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 the name of Mr Artem Viktorovych Pshonka was 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 222, 6.7.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/25

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-269/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by 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)

(2021/C 329/32)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 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) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 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 the name of Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka was 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 222, 6.7.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/26

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — MCM Products v EUIPO — The Nomad Company (NOMAD)

(Case T-285/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union word mark NOMAD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MCM Products AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Eichhammer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Nomad Company BV (Zevenaar, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Tigu, lawyer

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 (Case R 854/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between MCM Products and The Nomad Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders MCM Products AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/26

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)

(Case T-290/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark goclean - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 329/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ceramica Flaminia SpA (Civita Castellana, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and R. Arista, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ceramica Cielo SpA (Fabrica di Roma, Italy) (represented by: L. Ghedina, L. Gyulai and E. Fassina, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 (Case R 991/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ceramica Cielo and Ceramica Flaminia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ceramica Flaminia SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/27

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)

(Case T-362/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark REACCIONA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Existence of domestic legal proceedings - No proper reason for non-use)

(2021/C 329/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Acciona SA (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Agencia Negociadora PB SL (Las Rozas de Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and F. Ortega Sánchez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 (Case R 652/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Agencia Negociadora PB and Acciona.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Acciona SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Agencia Negociadora PB SL.

(1) OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/28

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building)

(Case T-373/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing a transportable building - Earlier designs - Proof of disclosure - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 329/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Framery Oy (Tampere, Finland) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Smartblock Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 (Case R 616/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Smartblock and Framery.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Framery Oy to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/28

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (YOUR DAILY PROTEIN)

(Case T-464/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark YOUR DAILY PROTEIN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (R 2235/2019-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign YOUR DAILY PROTEIN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/29

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Makk v EUIPO — Ubati Luxury Cosmetics (PANTA RHEI)

(Case T-501/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark PANTA RHEI - Earlier EU word mark PANTA RHEI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek and L. Lapinskaite, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ubati Luxury Cosmetics, SL (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by: C. Vendrell, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 (Case R 2337/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ubati Luxury Cosmetics and Mr Makk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Stefan Makk to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/29

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF)

(Case T-531/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ROLF - Earlier international mark Wolf - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard)

(2021/C 329/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wolf Oil Corporation NV (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: T. Heremans and L. Depypere, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rolf Lubricants GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen and S. Sullivan, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 (Case R 1958/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Wolf Oil Corporation and Rolf Lubricants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Wolf Oil Corporation NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/30

Action brought on 1 June 2021 — SV v EIB

(Case T-311/21)

(2021/C 329/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SV (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report;

—	annul the General Counsel’s decision of 26 June 2020 confirming the 2019 appraisal report in the context of the Staff-DG review as well as DG Personnel’s decision of 22 February 2021 rejecting the applicant’s request for administrative review;

—	compensate the applicant for his material prejudice as described in this application;

—	compensate the applicant for his non-material prejudice assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000;

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging the absence of full review of the appraisal — Violation of the EIB Implementing Rules.

—

The General Counsel, the applicant argues, did not perform a full review of the performance appraisal, as required by the EIB Implementing Rules, but limited the assessment to a marginal review, limited to finding whether the report was tainted by a manifest error of assessment. In the same vein, it is argued that DG Personnel also failed to perform a full review of the performance appraisal, contrary to the requirements of the EIB Implementing Rules.

Second plea in law, alleging an illegal assessment of the absolute performance rating of the applicant’s objectives and competencies — Violation of the Performance Management (PM) guidelines.

—

The applicant’s manager’s absolute evaluation of objectives and competencies violates the PM guidelines insofar as it is based on a relative assessment across the Division, the Department and the Directorate instead of an assessment of the applicant’s absolute achievements and demonstration of competencies. Such an erroneous review was then endorsed and applied by the General Counsel and DG Personnel, making their decision illegal as well.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to provide reasons and of section 3.4 of the PM guidelines.

—

It is argued that the defendant failed properly to motivate the appraisal report as this report does not document the discussion which took place between the applicant and his manager and as the reasons provided are insufficient in order to understand the lower ratings in comparison to the previous year.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and the absence of fair, objective and comprehensive assessment of the applicant’s absolute performance — Violation of the duty of good administration and of the duty of care — Violation of the PM guidelines.

—	The applicant considers that the assessment performed by his manager, endorsed by the General Counsel and DG Personnel, failed to duly take all factors into account and is tainted by manifest errors.

Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to provide reasons and manifest error of appraisal in relation to the managerial review and, in particular, the absence of promotion to D-level function.

—

The applicant, he argues, fully met all criteria for a promotion, in particular as he has performed well in his current role, has the ability and potential to perform at a higher level as confirmed to him on many occasions by his manager and has demonstrated motivation to work at a higher level, especially in consideration of the fact that he has continuously exercised corresponding higher level responsibilities. The defendant, it is said, has failed to motivate its decision not to promote the applicant. Such motivation can be found neither in the General Counsel’s decision nor in DG Personnel’s decision.

Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the right to be heard.

—	The 2019 performance results do not reflect one-on-one performance discussion and came as a big surprise.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/31

Action brought on 9 June 2021 — TB v ENISA

(Case T-322/21)

(2021/C 329/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the implicit decision taken by the ENISA Executive Director not to identify the post of Head of Unit of Policy Office and the post of Head of Unit of Finance and Procurement for internal mobility (the ‘implicit decision’);

—

The implicit decision has been revealed by:

—

the Administrative Notice 2020-11 presenting the conclusions of the dialogues for internal mobility of 1 September 2020, published on 3 September 2020 (the ‘Conclusions’) according to which three posts of Head of Units, corresponding namely to the Secured Infrastructure and Service Unit (COD1), the Data Security and Standardisation Unit (COD2) and the Operational Security Unit (COD3) have been identified for internal mobility;

—	the decisions of 5 August 2020 published on the ENISA website concerning two vacancies for open competition for the posts of Head of Unit for Executive Director Office and for Corporate Support Services.

—	in so far as necessary, annul the Conclusions and the decisions of 5 August 2020;

—	in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 3 March 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the implicit decision, the Conclusions and the decisions of 5 August 2020.

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging lack of clarity and transparency, breach of the principle of legal certainty, manifest error of assessment and violation of principle 6 of MB (Management Board) Decision 2020/5.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging lack of motivation.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging violation of Annex 1 of the Administrative Notice.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the 7th and 8th principles of the MB Decision 2020/5, violation of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and violation of the duty of care.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/32

Action brought on 19 June 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-340/21)

(2021/C 329/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the defendant’s decision of 23 December 2020 on State aid SA.59462 (2020/N) — Greece — COVID-19: Damage compensation for Aegean Airlines (1); 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.

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU, the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment) and Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2).

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2021 C 122, p. 15 and 16.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/33

Action brought on 19 June 2021 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)

(Case T-342/21)

(2021/C 329/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bambu Sales, Inc. (Secaucus, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BAMBU — Application for registration No 18 105 815

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 1702/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in its entirety;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/33

Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA)

(Case T-343/21)

(2021/C 329/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aruba SpA (Bibbiena, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ARUBA — European Union trade mark No 14 421 598

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 259/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings;

—	order Aruba S.p.A. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article (8)(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the assessment of the similarities between the conflicting signs.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/34

Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Plusmusic v EUIPO — Groupe Canal + (+music)

(Case T-344/21)

(2021/C 329/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark +music — Application for registration No 17 482 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2021 in Case R 1236/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	partially annul the contested decision insofar as it confirms the other party’s opposition on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) EURMR;

—	order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the visual comparison of the signs;

—	Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the distinctiveness of the earlier cross device marks;

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/35

Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA NETWORKS)

(Case T-345/21)

(2021/C 329/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aruba SpA (Bibbiena, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ARUBA NETWORKS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 198 196

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2021 in Case R 1473/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings;

—	order Aruba S.p.A. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the assessment of the similarities between the conflicting signs.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/36

Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Hecht Pharma v EUIPO — Gufic Biosciences (Gufic)

(Case T-346/21)

(2021/C 329/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Hecht Pharma GmbH (Bremervörde, Germany) (represented by: C. Sachs and J. Sachs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gufic Biosciences Ltd. (Mumbai, India)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Gufic — EU trade mark No 8 613 044

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2021 in Case R 2738/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and also declare EU trade mark No 8 613 044 ‘Gufic’ revoked in respect of Class 5 ‘Medicines’;

—	order Gufic Biosciences Ltd. to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the pre-litigation procedure.

Plea in law

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/36

Action brought on 17 June 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-354/21)

(2021/C 329/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 7 April 2021 refusing to grant access to the requested documents, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, (2) related to the state of the implementation of the fisheries control in France and Denmark and on the existence of pilot cases and infringement procedures in the European Union relating to the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, (3) and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the inspections, investigations and audits exception, pursuant to Article 4(2), third indent, of the Transparency Regulation and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and also alleging the infringement of the duty to state reasons.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant incorrectly rejected the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents.

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

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

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1).

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/37

Action brought on 24 June 2021 — Polo Club Düsseldorf v EUIPO — Company Bridge and Life (POLO CLUB DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976)

(Case T-355/21)

(2021/C 329/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polo Club Düsseldorf GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Company Bridge and Life, SL (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark POLO CLUB DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976 — Application for registration No 17 984 671

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2021 in Case R 1667/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	change the contested decision, and

—	reject the opposition.

Plea in law

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/38

Action brought on 24 June 2021 — Future Motion v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (HYPERCORE)

(Case T-356/21)

(2021/C 329/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Future Motion, Inc. (Santa Cruz, California, United States) (represented by: F.-M. Orou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark HYPERCORE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 360 694

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2021 in Case R 1229/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs,

—	in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/38

Action brought on 25 June 2021 — Jose A. Alfonso Arpon v EUIPO — Puma (PLUMAflex by Roal)

(Case T-357/21)

(2021/C 329/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL (Arnedo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark PLUMAflex by Roal — Application for registration No 17 880 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2021 in Case R 2991/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/39

Action brought on 29 June 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)

(Case T-367/21)

(2021/C 329/52)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. (Robakowo, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark READY 4YOU — Application No 18 210 977

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 2273/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in its entirety and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 210 977;

—	in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 2273/2020-5 and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof;

—	Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—

Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation to give reasons for decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/40

Action brought on 30 June 2021 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE)

(Case T-370/21)

(2021/C 329/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogena GmbH & Co KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 430 349

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 in Case R 1208/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	grant the registration of the IR 1 430 349 for all applied goods;

—	order EUIPO and Alter Farmacia, S. A. to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/41

Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Sympatex Technologies v EUIPO — Liwe Española (Sympathy Inside)

(Case T-372/21)

(2021/C 329/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sympatex Technologies GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liwe Española, SA (Puente Tocinos, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union work mark Sympathy Inside — Application for registration No 16 286 106

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2021 in Case R 1777/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	reject the opposition against the European Union trademark application No 16 286 106 ‘Sympathy Inside’ (word mark) in its entirety;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs of the court proceedings and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/41

Action brought on 2 July 2021 — documentus Deutschland v EUIPO — Reisswolf (REISSWOLF)

(Case T-374/21)

(2021/C 329/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: documentus Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Weller, V. Wolf and A. Wulff)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark REISSWOLF — EU trade mark No 5 791 751

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 2354/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 9 September 2019 in cancellation proceedings (invalidity) No 17 081 C concerning the EU trade mark REISSWOLF, No 5791751;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 59(2) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/42

Action brought on 2 July 2021 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Representation of a geometric figure)

(Case T-375/21)

(2021/C 329/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Lüft, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomas Schafft (Munich)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a geometric figure) — EU trade mark No 13 975 453

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2021 in Joined Cases R 1931/2018-2 and R 1936/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in so far as it declares the applicant’s rights in the contested EU trade mark No 13 975 453 to be revoked also in respect of the goods in Class 14 (wristwatches) and Class 18 (watch straps);

—	dismiss appeal R 1931/2018-2 brought by the cancellation applicant;

—	order EUIPO to pay costs;

—	in the event that the other party appears as intervener in the proceedings, order him to bear his own costs.

Plea in law

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/43

Action brought on 5 July 2021 — D&A Pharma v EMA

(Case T-381/21)

(2021/C 329/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Debregeas et associés Pharma (D&A Pharma) (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Viguié and D. Krzisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision by which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) abolished the scientific advisory group ‘Scientific Advisory Group on Psychiatry’ of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), as revealed by the public call for expression of interest for experts to become members of the EMA’s scientific advisory groups (SAGs) of 5 May 2021 and the EMA press release of 5 May 2021;

—	order the EMA to pay the costs of the 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 infringement of the principle of equality between candidates for a marketing authorisation, of the principle of consistency in the opinions of the institutions, and of the provisions of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 726/2004. (1) The applicant adds that the abolition of the scientific advisory group ‘Scientific Advisory Group on Psychiatry’ is unlawful, more generally, on the ground that it denies candidates for a marketing authorisation a guarantee of consistency in the opinions expressed in the specific therapeutic field of psychiatry, but also in that it is liable to lead to inconsistencies and unequal treatment of candidates for a marketing authorisation in the context of the re-examination procedure provided for in Article 9 of Regulation No 726/2004, which may be requested by the candidate for a marketing authorisation should the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (‘CHMP’) be unfavourable in the initial procedure.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality which must guide the marketing authorisation application procedures before the EMA and of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 726/2004. The applicant claims in that regard that the abolition of the above scientific advisory group necessarily creates, for a candidate for a marketing authorisation in the field of psychiatric medicines who has requested a re-examination procedure, a legitimate doubt as to the impartiality of that procedure, in so far as the members of ad hoc expert groups are selected by the CHMP on the occasion of the re-examination and for each candidate.

Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 726/2004, should the Court find that that article authorises the CHMP of the EMA to institute and to abolish, at its discretion, scientific advisory groups, in that this goes against the principles of equality, impartiality and consistency.

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

16.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/44

Action brought on 6 July 2021 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airscreen)

(Case T-382/21)

(2021/C 329/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark airscreen — Application for registration No 16 926 735

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 May 2021 in Case R 1990/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 329

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 64 16 August 2021

Contents		page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2021/C 329/01	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
2021/C 329/02	Case C-521/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Tax inspection — Supply of services as an activity of an agent for performing artists — Transactions subject to VAT — Transactions not declared to the tax authority and not invoiced — Fraud — Reconstitution of the taxable amount for income tax purposes — Principle of VAT neutrality — Inclusion of VAT in the reconstituted taxable amount)	2
2021/C 329/03	Case C-718/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Association pour le droit des Étrangers ASBL, Coordination et Initiatives pour et avec les Réfugiés et Étrangers ASBL, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme ASBL, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen ASBL v Conseil des ministres (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Decision to terminate a person’s residence on grounds of public policy — Preventive measures to avoid any risk of the person concerned absconding during the period allowed for that person to leave the territory of the host Member State — National provisions similar to those applicable to third-country nationals under Article 7(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC — Maximum period of detention for the purpose of removal — National provision identical to that applicable to third-country nationals)	3
2021/C 329/04	Case C-301/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UE, HC v Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — European Certificate of Succession — Validity of a certified copy of the certificate not having an expiration date — Article 65(1) — Article 69 — Effects of the certificate as regards the persons who are designated on it but have not requested it to be issued — Article 70(3) — Date to take into account for the assessment of the validity of the copy — Evidential effects of the copy)	4
2021/C 329/05	Case C-717/20 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2020 by Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Case T-249/19, Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission	4
2021/C 329/06	Case C-21/21 P: Appeal brought on 13 January 2021 by Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-416/20 REC Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union and Others	5
2021/C 329/07	Case C-150/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Criminal proceedings against D.B.	5
2021/C 329/08	Case C-255/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni — AGCOM	6
2021/C 329/09	Case C-263/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2021 — Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos (AMETIC) v Administración General del Estado, Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Propiedad Intelectual (ADEPI), Artistas, Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE), Artistas Intérpretes, Sociedad de Gestión (AISGE), Ventanilla Única Digital, Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO), Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI) and Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE)	7
2021/C 329/10	Case C-292/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Confederación Nacional de Autoescuelas (CNAE) and Others v Asociación para la Defensa de los Intereses Comunes de las Autoescuelas (AUDICA) and Others	8
2021/C 329/11	Case C-298/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 10 May 2021 — S. C. Techno-Gaz K.F.T. PAKS v U. A. T. Comuna Dalnic	8
2021/C 329/12	Case C-301/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 11 May 2021 — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia, Curtea de Apel Cluj, Tribunalul Bihor, Tribunalul Satu Mare and Tribunalul Sălaj v YF, KP, OJ, YS, SL, DB and SH	9
2021/C 329/13	Case C-306/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 May 2021 — Komisia za zashtita na lichnite danni, Tsentralna izbiratelna komisia v Koalitsia Demokratichna Bulgaria — Оbedinenie	10
2021/C 329/14	Case C-308/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 14 May 2021 — KU and Others v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA	11
2021/C 329/15	Case C-339/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 May 2021 — Colt Technology Services SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Telecom Italia SpA, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero della Giustizia, Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma, Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Cagliari, Procura generale della Repubblica presso la Corte d’appello di Reggio Calabria, Vodafone Italia SpA v Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Procura Generale della Repubblica (presso Corte d’appello di Reggio Calabria), Procura della Repubblica di Cagliari, Procura della Repubblica (presso il Tribunale di Roma), Procura della Repubblica (presso il Tribunale di Locri)	12
2021/C 329/16	Case C-340/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 June 2021 — VB v Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite	12
2021/C 329/17	Case C-391/21 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2021 by Enrico Falqui against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, extended composition) of 5 May 2021 in Case T-695/19, Enrico Falqui v European Parliament	13
2021/C 329/18	Case C-401/21 P: Appeal brought on 29 June 2021 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-543/19 Romania v Commission	15
	General Court
2021/C 329/19	Case T-226/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission (REACH — Updating of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning restrictions on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of certain dangerous substances, mixtures and articles — Restrictions concerning octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) — Manifest error of assessment — Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006 — Weight-of-evidence determination — Article 68 of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Unacceptable risk — Proportionality — Essential procedural requirements)	16
2021/C 329/20	Case T-519/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Global Silicones Council and Others v ECHA (REACH — Establishment of a list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Entry of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexsiloxane (D6) in that list — Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006 — Weight-of-evidence determination — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)	17
2021/C 329/21	Case T-17/19: Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Moi v Parliament (Institutional law — European Parliament — Psychological harassment — Decisions of the President of the Parliament finding that two accredited parliamentary assistants suffered harassment and imposing on a Member of Parliament the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 12 days — Rules 11 and 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Internal appeal — Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament confirming the penalty — Rule 167 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Action for annulment — Time limit for bringing an action — Admissibility — Rights of the defence — Non-contractual liability)	18
2021/C 329/22	Case T-265/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Italy v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Italy — Clearance of the accounts — Conformity clearance — Financial corrections — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Risk of financial loss — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Primary administrative or judicial finding — Existence of an irregularity)	18
2021/C 329/23	Case T-624/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with a brush) (EU trade mark — Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a handgrip with a brush — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	19
2021/C 329/24	Case T-635/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — State aid — Banking sector — Planned recapitalisation by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members — Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State — Waiver of rescue and initiation of a resolution procedure — Directives 2014/49/EU and 2014/59/EU — Decision not to raise objections — Requests for information and positions adopted by the Commission during the preliminary examination stage — No causal link)	20
2021/C 329/25	Case T-668/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings v EUIPO (Combination of sounds on opening a can of soft drink) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a combination of sounds on opening a can of soft drink — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)	20
2021/C 329/26	Case T-15/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Skyliners v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLINERS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SKYLINERS — Earlier EU word marks SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 41(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Entitlement to file the opposition)	21
2021/C 329/27	Case T-204/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Zoom v EUIPO — Facetec (ZOOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark ZOOM — Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))	22
2021/C 329/28	Case T-227/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE BARCELONA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BIOVÈNE BARCELONA — Earlier EU word mark BIORENE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	22
2021/C 329/29	Case T-232/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark BIOVÈNE — Earlier EU word mark BIORENE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	23
2021/C 329/30	Case T-267/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Arbuzov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation of the Council to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)	23
2021/C 329/31	Case T-268/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Pshonka v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation of the Council to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)	24
2021/C 329/32	Case T-269/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Pshonka v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by 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)	25
2021/C 329/33	Case T-285/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — MCM Products v EUIPO — The Nomad Company (NOMAD) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union word mark NOMAD — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	26
2021/C 329/34	Case T-290/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark goclean — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))	26
2021/C 329/35	Case T-362/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark REACCIONA — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Existence of domestic legal proceedings — No proper reason for non-use)	27
2021/C 329/36	Case T-373/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a transportable building — Earlier designs — Proof of disclosure — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons)	28
2021/C 329/37	Case T-464/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (YOUR DAILY PROTEIN) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark YOUR DAILY PROTEIN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	28
2021/C 329/38	Case T-501/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Makk v EUIPO — Ubati Luxury Cosmetics (PANTA RHEI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark PANTA RHEI — Earlier EU word mark PANTA RHEI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	29
2021/C 329/39	Case T-531/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ROLF — Earlier international mark Wolf — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard)	29
2021/C 329/40	Case T-311/21: Action brought on 1 June 2021 — SV v EIB	30
2021/C 329/41	Case T-322/21: Action brought on 9 June 2021 — TB v ENISA	31
2021/C 329/42	Case T-340/21: Action brought on 19 June 2021 — Ryanair v Commission	32
2021/C 329/43	Case T-342/21: Action brought on 19 June 2021 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)	33
2021/C 329/44	Case T-343/21: Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA)	33
2021/C 329/45	Case T-344/21: Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Plusmusic v EUIPO — Groupe Canal + (+music)	34
2021/C 329/46	Case T-345/21: Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA NETWORKS)	35
2021/C 329/47	Case T-346/21: Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Hecht Pharma v EUIPO — Gufic Biosciences (Gufic)	36
2021/C 329/48	Case T-354/21: Action brought on 17 June 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission	36
2021/C 329/49	Case T-355/21: Action brought on 24 June 2021 — Polo Club Düsseldorf v EUIPO — Company Bridge and Life (POLO CLUB DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976)	37
2021/C 329/50	Case T-356/21: Action brought on 24 June 2021 — Future Motion v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (HYPERCORE)	38
2021/C 329/51	Case T-357/21: Action brought on 25 June 2021 — Jose A. Alfonso Arpon v EUIPO — Puma (PLUMAflex by Roal)	38
2021/C 329/52	Case T-367/21: Action brought on 29 June 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)	39
2021/C 329/53	Case T-370/21: Action brought on 30 June 2021 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE)	40
2021/C 329/54	Case T-372/21: Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Sympatex Technologies v EUIPO — Liwe Española (Sympathy Inside)	41
2021/C 329/55	Case T-374/21: Action brought on 2 July 2021 — documentus Deutschland v EUIPO — Reisswolf (REISSWOLF)	41
2021/C 329/56	Case T-375/21: Action brought on 2 July 2021 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Representation of a geometric figure)	42
2021/C 329/57	Case T-381/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — D&A Pharma v EMA	43
2021/C 329/58	Case T-382/21: Action brought on 6 July 2021 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airscreen)	44