4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Kollaustraße 136 v Finanzamt Hamburg-Oberalster

(Case C-9/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 66 - Chargeability of VAT - The time the payment is received - Article 167 - Origin and scope of the right of input VAT deduction - Article 167a - Derogation - Cash accounting - Letting and subletting of a property used for industrial or commercial purposes)

(2022/C 148/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grundstücksgemeinschaft Kollaustraße 136

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Oberalster

Operative part of the judgment

Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of valued added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the right of input tax deduction arises at the time the transaction takes place if, pursuant to a national derogation under point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 66 of Directive 2006/112, such as amended by Directive 2010/45, the tax becomes chargeable to the supplier of goods or services only when the remuneration is received and has not yet been paid.

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — LM v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

(Case C-219/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Directive 96/71/EC - Article 3(1)(c) - Terms and conditions of employment - Remuneration - Article 5 - Penalties - Limitation period - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Right to good administration - Article 47 - Effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 148/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LM

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

Intervener: Österreichische Gesundheitskasse

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the light of the general principle of EU law relating to the right to good administration, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for a five-year limitation period for failure to comply with obligations relating to the remuneration of posted workers.

(1) OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — XXXX v HR Rail SA

(Case C-485/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability - Dismissal of a worker who had become permanently incapable of performing the essential functions of the post - Staff member completing training as part of recruitment - Article 5 - Reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities - Requirement to reassign to another post - Obligation subject to it not being a disproportionate burden for the employer)

(2022/C 148/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXXX

Defendant: HR Rail SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ for disabled persons, within the meaning of that article requires that a worker, including someone undertaking a traineeship following his or her recruitment, who, owing to his or her disability, has been declared incapable of performing the essential functions of the post that he or she occupies, be assigned to another position for which he or she has the necessary competence, capability and availability, unless that measure imposes a disproportionate burden on the employer.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/4

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Philips Orăştie S.R.L. v Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-487/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 179 and 183 - Right to deduct VAT - Conditions - Compensation or refund of excess VAT - Additional liabilities - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

(2022/C 148/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philips Orăştie S.R.L.

Defendant: Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 179 and the first paragraph of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as well as the principle of equivalence, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down detailed procedural rules governing actions for the refund of value added tax (VAT), based on an infringement of the common system of VAT, less favourable than those applicable to similar actions based on an infringement of domestic law relating to duties and taxes other than VAT.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/5

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — DIMCO Dimovasili M.I.K.E. v Ypourgos Perivallontos kai Energeias

(Case C-499/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 97/23/EC - Pressure equipment - CE marking - Placing on the market and putting into service - Restrictions aimed at ensuring the protection of persons - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - National legislation imposing restrictions on the method of installation of gas pipes)

(2022/C 148/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DIMCO Dimovasili M.I.K.E.

Defendant: Ypourgos Perivallontos kai Energeias

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(1.1) of, and Annex I to, Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Directive 97/23, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in order to ensure the safety of persons, in particular against earthquakes, lays down certain methods of installation for pressure equipment, such as pipes for the transport of gas, including those with the CE marking, provided that that legislation does not lead to any modification of that equipment and does not constitute an obstacle prohibited by Articles 34 and 36 TFEU.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — OE v VY

(Case C-522/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for divorce - Article 18 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) - Difference between the length of the residence period required for the purposes of determining which court has jurisdiction - Distinction between a resident who is a national of the Member State of the court before which the application is brought and a resident who is not a national of that Member State - No discrimination on grounds of nationality)

(2022/C 148/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OE

Defendant: VY

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, enshrined in Article 18 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding a situation in which the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in the territory of which the habitual residence of the applicant is located, as provided for in the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, is subject to the applicant being resident for a minimum period immediately before making his or her application which is six months shorter than that provided for in the fifth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation on the ground that the person concerned is a national of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/6

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — PF, MF v Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority

(Case C-564/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 - Control system - Article 33(2)(a) and Article 34 - Recording of catches and fishing effort - Transmission to the European Commission of information concerning the quantities of nephrops caught - Possibility to use data other than those contained in the fishing logbook - Reasonable and scientifically valid method to process and verify data - Closure of fisheries)

(2022/C 148/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PF, MF

Defendants: Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(2)(a) and Article 34 of Council 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, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015, must be interpreted to the effect that the Single Control Authority of a Member State is not required to notify to the European Commission only the data recorded by the masters of fishing vessels in the fishing logbook, pursuant to Articles 14 and 15 of that regulation, but may use a reasonable and scientifically valid method, such as the ‘time spent’ methodology, to process those data in order to ensure the accuracy of the catch figures that it notifies to the Commission.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UE v ShareWood Switzerland AG, VF

(Case C-595/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) - Consumer contracts - Choice of applicable law - Article 6(4)(c) - Exclusion of contracts relating to a right in rem in immovable property or to a tenancy of immovable property - Contract of sale, including a lease agreement and a service agreement, relating to trees planted for the sole purpose of being harvested for profits)

(2022/C 148/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UE

Defendants: ShareWood Switzerland AG, VF

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘Rome I’) must be interpreted as meaning that a contract of sale, including a lease agreement and a service agreement, relating to trees planted on leased land for the sole purpose of being harvested for profit, does not constitute a ‘contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property or a tenancy of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/7

Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 16 February 2022 — Hungary v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-156/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 - General regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union budget - Protection of the Union budget in the case of breaches of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States - Legal basis - Article 322(1)(a) TFEU - Alleged circumvention of Article 7 TEU and Article 269 TFEU - Alleged infringements of Article 4(1), Article 5(2) and Article 13(2) TEU and of the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and equality of Member States before the Treaties)

(2022/C 148/10)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and M.M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, R. Crowe, U. Rösslein, T. Lukácsi and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Rebasti, A. Tamás and A. Sikora-Kalėda, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, M. Jacobs and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by M. Søndahl Wolff and J. Nymann-Lindegren, and subsequently by M. Søndahl Wolff and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, J. Quaney and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by D. Fennelly, Barrister-at-Law), Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig and S. Centeno Huerta, and subsequently by J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, A.-C. Drouant and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented initially by A. Germeaux and T. Uri, and subsequently by A. Germeaux, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: O. Simonsson, J. Lundberg, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, H. Shev, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Eklinder and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Calleja Crespo, J.-P. Keppenne, J. Baquero Cruz and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Full Court):

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/8

Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 16 February 2022 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-157/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 - General regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union budget - Protection of the Union budget in the case of breaches of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States - Legal basis - Article 322(1)(a) TFEU - Article 311 TFEU - Article 312 TFEU - Alleged circumvention of Article 7 TEU and Article 269 TFEU - Alleged infringements of Article 4(1), Article 5(2) and Article 13(2) TEU, of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, of Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and of the principles of conferral, legal certainty, proportionality and equality of the Member States before the Treaties - Alleged misuse of powers)

(2022/C 148/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and M.M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. Crowe, F. Drexler, U. Rösslein, T. Lukácsi and by A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Rebasti, A. Tamás and by A. Sikora-Kalėda, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs, C. Pochet and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by M. Søndahl Wolff and J. Nymann-Lindegren, and subsequently by M. Søndahl Wolff and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, J. Quaney and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by D. Fennelly, Barrister-at-Law), Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig and S. Centeno Huerta, and subsequently by J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, A.-C. Drouant and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented: initially by A. Germeaux and T. Uri, and subsequently by A. Germeaux, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: O. Simonsson, J. Lundberg, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, H. Shev, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Eklinder and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Calleja Crespo, J.-P. Keppenne, J. Baquero Cruz, A. Tokár, and by K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Republic of Poland to bears its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 10 November 2021 — Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A. v 2045-Empresa de Segurança, S.A., FL

(Case C-675/21)

(2022/C 148/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A.

Respondents: 2045 — Empresa de Segurança, S.A., FL

Questions referred

Can the lack of a contractual link between successive service providers still be said to be an indication that there has not been a transfer within the meaning of Directive 2001/23/EC, (1) notwithstanding that, like the other factors, this is not in itself decisive and must not be considered in isolation (judgment of 11 March 1997, Ayse Süzen, C-13/95, paragraph 11)? (2)

In the context of an activity such as private security services at industrial facilities, in which the new provider has taken over only one of the four employees that had formed part of the economic unit (and did not therefore take over the majority) and there is no factual basis for concluding that the employee in question possessed specific skills and knowledge such as to support the assertion that, in terms of skills, an essential part of the staff has been transferred to the new provider and no intangible assets have been transferred, may it be concluded that there is no transfer of an economic entity, even in the case where the customer continues to make certain equipment (alarms, closed-circuit television, computer) available to the new service provider, given, on the one hand, the relatively low economic value of the investment which that equipment represents in the operation as a whole, and, on the other hand, the fact that it would not have been sensible, from an economic point of view (judgment of 27 February 2020, Grafe and Pohle, C-298/18, paragraph 32), (3) to require the customer to replace it?

If ‘that question ha[s] to be assessed in actual fact by the national court in the light of the criteria laid down by the Court (judgment of 7 August 2018, Colino Sigüenza, C-472/16, paragraph 45; (4) judgment in Grafe and Pohle, paragraph 27), as well as the objectives pursued by Directive 2001/23, as set out, inter alia, in recital 3 thereof’, must account be taken of the fact that ‘Directive 2001/23 does not aim solely to safeguard the interests of employees in the event of transfer of an undertaking, but seeks to ensure a fair balance between the interests of those employees, on the one hand, and those of the transferee, on the other’ (paragraph 26 of the judgment in ISS Facility Services NV of 26 March 2020, Case C-344/18, (5) which in turn contains the statement already made in the judgment in Alemo-Herron of 18 July 2013, C-426/11, paragraph 25)? (6)

(1) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

(2) EU:C:1997:141.

(3) EU:C:2020:121.

(4) EU:C:2018:646.

(5) EU:C:2020:239.

(6) EU:C:2013:521.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 15 December 2021 — VB v Comune di Portici

(Case C-777/21)

(2022/C 148/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VB

Respondent: Comune di Portici

Question referred

Is the Italian State’s legislation (in this case, Article 93(1-bis) and (7-bis) of Legislative Decree No 285/1992) contrary to Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that it prohibits a self-employed worker resident in Italy for more than 60 days from travelling in that State in a vehicle registered in another Member State regularly used by that individual to travel and move about in the two Member States — the State of residence and the State where the vehicle is registered — in order to practise his profession (and for reasons relating to his private life)?

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2022 — HK v Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG

(Case C-2/22)

(2022/C 148/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HK

Defendant: Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG

Questions referred

Does EU law, in particular Article 31 of the Third Life Assurance Directive (1) and Article 15(1) of the Second Life Assurance Directive, (2) read where appropriate in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation under which full consumer information is only provided with the insurance policy, that is after the consumer has made an application (‘policy model’)?

If so: Does that of itself substantiate the consumer’s right to object, that is to demand reversal of the insurance contract?

Might the exercise of such a right be prevented by a plea of forfeiture or abuse of rights or is the exercise of that right subject to any other limits, such as time limits?

2.	Is an insurer which provided the consumer with no information or with incorrect information on his or her right to object prohibited from relying on forfeiture, abuse of rights or lapse of time to prevent the exercise of the consumer’s resultant rights, including the right to object?

3.	Is an insurer which provided the consumer with no consumer information or with incorrect consumer information prohibited from relying on forfeiture, abuse of rights or lapse of time to prevent the exercise of the consumer’s resultant rights, including the right to object?

(1) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 5 January 2022 — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-8/22)

(2022/C 148/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXX

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Questions referred

Must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011, on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, (1) be interpreted as providing that danger to the community is established by the mere fact that the beneficiary of refugee status has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime or must it be interpreted as providing that a conviction by a final judgment for a particularly serious crime is not, on its own, sufficient to establish the existence of a danger to the community?

If a conviction by final judgment for a particularly serious crime is not, on its own, sufficient to establish the existence of a danger to the community, must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as requiring the Member State to establish that, since his or her conviction, the applicant continues to constitute a danger to the community? Must the Member State establish that the danger is genuine and present or is the existence of a potential threat sufficient? Must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU, taken alone or in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, be interpreted as allowing revocation of refugee status only if that revocation is proportionate and the danger represented by the beneficiary of that status sufficiently serious to justify that revocation?

If the Member State does not have to establish that, since his or her conviction, the applicant continues to constitute a danger to the community and that the threat is genuine, present and sufficiently serious to justify the revocation of refugee status, must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as meaning that danger to the community is established, in principle, by the fact that the beneficiary of refugee status has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, but that he or she may establish that he or she does not constitute, or no longer constitutes, such a danger?

(1) OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 6 January 2022 — UR v 365.bank a.s.

(Case C-12/22)

(2022/C 148/19)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UR

Defendant: 365.bank a.s.

Questions referred

1.	Do the details specified in the consumer credit agreement concluded on 21 December 2016, as quoted in the text of the present order, constitute a clear and concise specification of the type of credit, as required by Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC? (1)

2.	Do the details specified in the consumer credit agreement concluded on 21 December 2016, as quoted in the text of the present order, constitute a clear and concise specification of the duration of the credit agreement, as required by Article 10(2)(c) of Directive 2008/48/EC?

Do the details specified in the consumer credit agreement concluded on 21 December 2016, as quoted in the text of the present order, constitute a clear and concise specification of the type of credit, as required by Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC, and

—	must a consumer credit agreement contain the mathematical formula for calculating the APRC, together with the variables substituted, as well the calculation itself,

—	is it sufficient for the consumer credit agreement to contain in the text thereof the variables necessary to calculate the APRC, or must those variables be stated again with the express indication that they are the assumptions for calculating the APRC?

4.	Can Directive 93/13/EEC (2) be interpreted as requiring national legislation or practice to oblige a court to declare a contractual term unfair even after the contractual relationship has ended, as in the present case?

Is a judicial practice which, in the case of an alleged absence of a compulsory requirement of consumer credit agreement, presumes that that fact was already known to the consumer at the time the credit agreement was signed, in particular where the consumer separately confirmed that he or she had acquainted him or herself with the credit agreement by signing other related credit documents (for example standard consumer credit information form, the list of documents received, etc.) contrary to Council Directive 93/13/EEC as a whole, and in particular the fifth recital thereof (whereas, generally speaking, consumers do not know the rules of law which, in Member States other than their own, govern contracts for the sale of goods or services; whereas this lack of awareness may deter them from direct transactions for the purchase of goods or services in another Member State)?

Is it contrary to the principle of consumer protection and the principle of effectiveness for national law to provide for a subjective limitation period for bringing an action for the recovery of unjust enrichment obtained by the supplier at the expense of the consumer, but also for an objective limitation period based on a neutral criterion (the occurrence of unjust enrichment), so that the determination of the point at which the limitation period begins is not left exclusively to the consumer’s assertion and thus without the supplier having any real possibility of defending him or herself by pleading limitation?

7.	Is it compatible with the principle of consumer protection and the principle of effectiveness for any deficiency in a consumer credit agreement drawn up by a supplier to be regarded automatically as being the result of a deliberate fault on the part of the supplier?

Is the principle of effectiveness in the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union cited below to be construed as meaning that the limitation period for unjust enrichment obtained by reason of the interest-free and charge-free nature of the credit on account of a defect, begins only from the time the court rules on such a defect (for example by determining the interest-free and charge-free nature of the credit)?

9.	From what time does the principle of effectiveness, as applied in the judgments of the Court of Justice cited below, require the limitation period to begin?

(1) Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

(2) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2022 — UF v Land Hesse

(Case C-26/22)

(2022/C 148/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UF

Defendant: Land Hesse

Joined party: SCHUFA Holding AG

Questions referred

Is Article 77(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (‘GDPR’), read in conjunction with Article 78(1) thereof, to be understood as meaning that the outcome that the supervisory authority reaches and notifies to the data subject

(a)

has the character of a decision on a petition? This would mean that judicial review of a decision on a complaint taken by a supervisory authority in accordance with Article 78(1) of the GDPR is, in principle, limited to the question of whether the authority has handled the complaint, investigated the subject matter of the complaint to the extent appropriate and informed the complainant of the outcome of the investigation,

(b)

is to be understood as a decision on the merits taken by a public authority? This would mean that a decision on a complaint taken by a supervisory authority would be subject to a full substantive review by the court in accordance with Article 78(1) of the GDPR, whereby, in individual cases — for example where discretion is reduced to zero — the supervisory authority may also be obliged by the court to take a specific measure within the meaning of Article 58 of the GDPR.

Is the storage of data at a private credit information agency, where personal data from a public register, such as the ‘national databases’ within the meaning of Article 79(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848, (2) are stored without a specific reason in order to be able to provide information in the event of a request, compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

(a)

Are private databases (in particular databases of a credit information agency) which exist in parallel with, and are set up in addition to, the State databases and in which the data from the latter (in casu, insolvency announcements) are stored for longer than the period provided for within the narrow framework of Regulation (EU) 2015/848, read in conjunction with the national law, permissible in principle?

(b)	If Question 3a is answered in the affirmative, does it follow from the ‘right to be forgotten’ under Article 17(1)(d) of the GDPR that such data must be deleted where the processing period provided for in respect of the public register has expired?

In so far as point (f) of Article 6(1) of the GDPR enters into consideration as the sole legal basis for the storage of data at private credit information agencies with regard to data also stored in public registers, is a credit information agency already to be regarded as pursuing a legitimate interest in the case where it imports data from the public register without a specific reason so that those data are then available in the event of a request?

Is it permissible for codes of conduct which have been approved by the supervisory authorities in accordance with Article 40 of the GDPR, and which provide for time limits for review and erasure that exceed the retention periods for public registers, to suspend the balancing of interests prescribed under point (f) of Article 6(1) of the GDPR?

(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).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 19).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2022 — VZ v CA

(Case C-53/22)

(2022/C 148/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VZ

Defendant: CA

Questions referred

Does Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 (1) preclude a competitor who is definitively excluded from a contractor selection procedure from being denied the possibility of a review of the refusal to annul the award, when it is intended to show that the successful tenderer, and all other shortlisted competitors, are guilty of grave professional misconduct, consisting of having entered into anticompetitive agreements which were determined by a court only after the competitor had been excluded, in order to have the opportunity to participate in a rerun of the procedure?

Does Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 and the principles [of European Union law] on the safeguarding of competition preclude an administrative court from the scrutiny of a review, requested by a competitor definitively excluded from a contractor selection procedure, of the contracting authority’s refusal to review measures which it adopted itself, with regard to the admission of and award to competitors who have entered into anticompetitive agreements, determined by a court, in the same sector as the tender procedure?

(1) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2022 — PL v État belge

(Case C-56/22)

(2022/C 148/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PL

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Does EU law, essentially the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive 2008/115/EC, (1) apply to a practice of a Member State allowing it to regularise in situ a foreign national staying there illegally? If it does, must Articles 5, 6 and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in accordance with [recitals 6 and 24] thereof, and Articles 1, 7, 14, 20, 21, 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State is considering granting an autonomous residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons to a third-country national staying illegally on its territory, it is entitled to: (i) require that national, first of all, to prove that it is impossible to make his or her application in his or her country of origin; and (ii) not set out in its legislation the, a fortiori objective, conditions and criteria for proving those compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons (whether as far as admissibility is concerned, by requiring that exceptional circumstances be demonstrated but not defining them, or as far as substance is concerned, by failing to lay down any objective criteria for defining the, inter alia humanitarian, reasons justifying a residence authorisation), thereby rendering the response to such an application unpredictable, or even arbitrary? If it is permissible for those criteria not to be laid down by legislation, in the event of a refusal, is the right to an effective remedy not undermined by the fact that the only remedy provided is based on strict legality, excluding any considerations of appropriateness?

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

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2022 — AB v Land Hesse

(Case C-64/22)

(2022/C 148/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AB

Defendant: Land Hesse

Joined party: SCHUFA Holding AG

Questions referred

(a)

(b)

(a)

(b)	If Question 3a is answered in the affirmative, does it follow from the ‘right to be forgotten’ under Article 17(1)(d) of the GDPR that such data must be deleted where the processing period provided for in respect of the public register has expired?

(2) Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 19).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/17

Action brought on 8 February 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-85/22)

(2022/C 148/24)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Gr. Koleva, C. Hermes)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘the Habitats Directive’), by:

—

failing to designate as soon as possible and within six years at most as special areas of conservation (‘SACs’) 194 out of a total of 229 sites of Community importance (‘SCIs’), adopted by Decisions 2009/93/EC, 2009/91/EC and 2009/92/EC of 12 December 2008 and Decision 2013/23/EU of 16 November 2012;

—	systematically and persistently failing to fulfil its obligation to set detailed site-specific conservation objectives;

—	systematically and persistently failing to fulfil its obligation to establish the necessary conservation measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the site, and

—	failing correctly to transpose Article 6(1) into national law.

(2)	order Bulgaria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present case concerns the incorrect transposition of Article 6(1) and the misapplication of Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive on the part of Bulgaria.

Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive requires, inter alia, once a given site has been adopted as a site of Community importance in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 2 of that provision, that the Member State concerned designate it as an SAC as soon as possible and within six years at most. In the judgment in Case C-849/19, Commission v Greece (EU:C:2020:1047), the Court stated that the Member States are required also to set specific conservation objectives for each SAC. Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive provides that in the context of SACs, Member States are to establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites.

According to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions to designate SACs within the required time limit; to set detailed site-specific conservation objectives; to establish the necessary conservation measures; and correctly to transpose into national law Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive.

(1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/18

Action brought on 15 February 2022 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-109/22)

(2022/C 148/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

—	declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-301/17, Commission v Romania, (1) Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

—

order Romania, in accordance with the provisions of Article 260(2) TFEU, to make penalty payments in the amount of EUR 29 781,30 for each day of delay in fulfilling its obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Case C-301/17, Commission v Romania, from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-301/17, Commission v Romania, have been adopted;

—

order Romania, in accordance with the provisions of Article 260(2) TFEU, to pay a lump sum, based on a daily amount of EUR 3 311,50, multiplied by the number of days which have elapsed from the day following the delivery of the judgment in Case C-301/17, Commission v Romania, until the date on which all the necessary measures have been taken by Romania to comply with that judgment, or, where those measures have not been taken, until the date of delivery of the judgment of the Court in the present case, the minimum amount of that lump sum being EUR 1 643 000;

—	order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action brought by the European Commission against Romania concerns the failure by that Member State to fulfil its obligation to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-301/17, because 44 of the 68 landfills to which that judgment refers have not yet been closed in accordance with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. (2)

The Commission submits that Romania cannot rely on purely internal situations in order to justify a failure to comply with the judgment of the Court, such as the need to carry out certain feasibility studies, the completion of certain compulsory purchase procedures, the conducting of certain administrative proceedings, or the failure by the economic operators who operate those landfills to take the necessary measures.

Therefore, the Commission proposes that penalty payments be applied to Romania for each day of delay in complying with the judgment of the Court in an amount of EUR 29 781,30 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-301/17 have been adopted. In order to ensure that it will be possible to monitor, verify and take into consideration the progress made by Romania, the Commission proposes that the penalty payments for each day of delay be calculated on the basis of 6-month periods of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-301/17, through the use of a degressive formula, whereby the total for such periods is reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the proportion representing the number of landfills which have been brought into compliance with the provisions of Directive 1999/31.

The Commission also proposes that Romania be obliged to pay a lump sum, based on a daily amount of EUR 3 311,50, multiplied by the number of days which have elapsed from the day following the delivery of the judgment in Case C-301/17 until the date on which all the necessary measures have been taken by Romania to comply with that judgment, or, where those measures have not been taken, until the date of delivery of the judgment of the Court in the present case, the minimum amount of that lump sum being EUR 1 643 000.

The amount of those penalties has been determined by taking into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement, as well as the need to ensure that penalties have a deterrent effect based on that Member State’s ability to pay, using the factor ‘n’.

(1) Judgment of the Court of 18 October 2018, Commission v Romania, C-301/17, EU:C:2018:846.

(2) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/19

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-116/22)

(2022/C 148/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that the Federal Republic of Germany

—	has infringed Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) by failing to designate 88 out of 4 606 areas in respect of which the six-year period laid down in that provision has expired as special areas of conservation;

—

has infringed Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43 by failing to set any conservation objectives for 88 of the 4 606 areas in question and, moreover, by adopting, in general and in structural terms, a practice when setting conservation objectives which does not satisfy the legal requirements of that provision;

—

has infringed Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43 by failing to establish any conservation measures for 737 of the 4 606 areas in question and, moreover, by adopting, in general and in structural terms, a practice when establishing conservation measures which does not satisfy the legal requirements of that provision;

2.	order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the European Commission claims that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to take the measures required by Directive 92/43/EEC as regards designation and management of its Natura 2000 network.

First, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 4(4) of the directive by failing to designate 88 out of 4 606 areas in respect of which the six-year period laid down in that provision has expired as special areas of conservation by the point in time relevant for the purposes of the failure to fulfil obligations.

Second, the Federal Republic of Germany has disregarded its obligation under Article 4(4) of the directive to define sufficiently specific conservation objectives by failing to set any conservation objectives for 88 of the 4 606 areas in question and, moreover, by adopting, in general and in structural terms, a practice when setting conservation objectives which does not satisfy the legal requirements of that provision. Under Article 4(4) of the directive, conservation objectives should be quantified and measurable, clearly differentiate between the objective of ‘restoration’ and that of ‘conservation’ of the relevant interests protected in the respective area and be laid down in generally binding legal acts. The German practice concerning the conservation objectives does not fulfil those requirements.

Third, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its obligation under Article 6(1) of the directive to establish the necessary conservation measures. The Federal Republic of Germany has failed to establish any conservation measures for 737 of the 4 606 areas in question and, moreover, has failed in the establishment of conservation objectives to satisfy, in general and in structural terms, the requirement under Article 6(1) of the directive according to which conservation measures should be based on sufficiently specific conservation objectives.

(1) Council Directive of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/21

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — GEA Group v Commission

(Case T-195/19) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC - Decision amending the initial decision annulled - Decision rejecting a request for repayment of the fine - Action for annulment - Actionable measure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Article 266(1) TFEU)

(2022/C 148/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont, R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, V. Bottka and T. Baumé, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2019) 283284 final of 24 January 2019 dismissing the request of the applicant seeking repayment of the fine paid under Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders GEA Group AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/21

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Heitec v EUIPO — Hetec Datensysteme (HEITEC)

(Case T-520/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark HEITEC - No account taken of evidence submitted before the Cancellation Division and before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No genuine use of the trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

(2022/C 148/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Heitec AG (Erlangue, Germany) (represented by: G. Wagner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hetec Datensysteme GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2019 (Case R 1171/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Hetec Datensysteme and Heitec.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Heitec AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/22

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Companhia de Seguros Índico v Commission

(Case T-672/19) (1)

(Public contracts - Financial Regulation - Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general EU budget and by the EDF for a three-year period - Principle of good faith - Abuse of rights - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2022/C 148/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Companhia de Seguros Índico SA (Maputo, Mozambique) (represented by: R. Oliveira, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 July 2019 excluding the applicant for three years from participating in procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general budget of the European Union and the European Development Fund (EDF) and from being selected for implementing Union funds, and publishing information relating to that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Companhia de Seguros Índico SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/23

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Sped-Pro v Commission

(Case T-791/19) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Rail freight transport services market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Reasonable time - EU interest in pursuing examination of a complaint - Determination of the authority best placed to examine a complaint - Criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning respect for the rule of law - Risk of infringement of a complainant’s rights if a complaint is rejected - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 148/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sped-Pro S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Kozak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, L. Wildpanner and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 6099 final of 12 August 2019 (Case AT.40459 — Rail freight forwarding in Poland — PKP Cargo), rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning alleged infringements of Article 102 TFEU on the rail freight transport services market in Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Commission Decision C(2019) 6099 final of 12 August 2019 (Case AT.40459 — Rail freight forwarding in Poland — PKP Cargo);

2.	Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sped-Pro S.A;

3.	Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/23

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OJ v Commission

(Case T-709/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition EPSO/AD/380/19 - Decision to refuse to extend the test dates for a competition - Time limits set for passing a selection test in a test centre - Right to a fair procedure - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 148/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: OJ (represented by: H.-E. von Harpe, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Hohenecker and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, in essence, annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 30 January 2020, by which that office refused to extend the date of the selection test for competition EPSO/AD/380/19.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders OJ to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/24

Order of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — OP v Commission

(Case T-736/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 - Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 148/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OP (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 of 5 February 2020 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list of that competition.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

2.	OP shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/24

Order of the General Court of 4 February 2022 — ultra air v EUIPO — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)

(Case T-67/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Proceedings for invalidity and revocation - European Union word mark ultrafilter international - Request for conversion to a national trade mark application - Revocation proceedings devoid of purpose - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 148/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2020 (Case R 271/2020-2), concerning revocation proceedings between ultra air and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	ultra air GmbH shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/25

Order of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)

(Case T-459/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Sunwhite - Earlier national figurative mark Sunwhite - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 148/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Calrose Rice (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and C. Böhmer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2021 (Case R 2465/2020 4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ricegrowers and Calrose Rice.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	Calrose Rice shall pay the costs of the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/26

Order of the General Court of 7 February 2022 — Faller and Others v Commission

(Case T-464/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Variation of the conditional marketing authorisation for the Comirnaty medicinal product for human use - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No direct concern - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 148/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Sonja Faller (Bressanone, Italy) and the 74 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 4034 (final) of 31 May 2021, amending the conditional marketing authorisation granted by Implementing Decision C(2020) 9598 (final) for Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified), a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by YI and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by EW and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and by Mr Arnošt Komárek and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II.

3.	Ms Sonja Faller and the other applicants whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs.

TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, YI and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, EW and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and Mr Komárek and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

(1) OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/26

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 February 2022 — Eurecna v Commission

(Case T-739/21 R)

(Interim relief - Public supply contracts - Application for interim measures - Lack of any urgency)

(2022/C 148/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, the suspension of the operation of the decisions of the Commission of 10, 16 and 30 September 2021 to impose a set-off of claims on the applicant and, secondly, to order the Commission to pay the relevant amounts to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for temporary interim relief is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/27

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Collard v Parliament and ID

(Case T-53/22 R)

(Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Member of the Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 148/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gilbert Collard (Vauvert, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Identity and Democracy political group (ID)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 22 January 2022 by which the applicant was suspended from that group and of the decision of the members of the ID political group of 25 January 2022 by which the applicant was excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/27

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Rivière v Parliament and ID

(Case T-54/22 R)

(2022/C 148/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jérôme Rivière (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Identity and Democracy political group (ID)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 21 January 2022 by which the applicant was suspended from that group and of the decision of the members of the ID political group of 25 January 2022 by which he was excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/28

Action brought on 4 November 2021 — ID and Others v Parliament

(Case T-711/21)

(2022/C 148/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ID and six other applicants (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	order the annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules for access to buildings at the European Parliament’s three places of work;

—	order the defendant to pay all of the costs, including those relating to the action for suspension of operation of the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has no valid legal basis for processing the applicants’ medical data. The applicants dispute that Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations and Articles 10(1), 80(4) and 126(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union constitute a valid legal basis for adopting the contested decision and, therefore, for imposing the contested measure against them. In addition, they submit that a decision of the Bureau, such as the contested decision, cannot form the basis of measures involving the processing of very sensitive data since, in accordance with Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the essential elements of such data processing must be laid down by ‘law’, which a decision of the Bureau of the Parliament is not.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles on the processing of personal data. This plea is divided into two parts.

—

First part, alleging infringement of the purpose limitation principle governing the processing of data and the principle of legality. In order for the personal data contained in the applicants’ EU digital COVID certificates to be used to give them access to the Parliament’s buildings, it is a legal requirement that those data must have been collected for that purpose. Without a legal basis expressly authorising the processing of medical data relating to vaccination, testing or recovery for the purposes of imposing conditions for access to a place of work and to parliamentary assemblies, in no circumstances is it for the Bureau of the Parliament to authorise such data processing, and all the less by means of a requirement which is not a law in the strict sense of the term.

—	Second part, alleging infringement of the principles of good faith, openness and minimisation since, when their personal data were collected, the applicants were not informed that those data would be used to give or refuse them access to their place of work.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes, without justification, the right to privacy and personal data, the right to physical integrity, the right to liberty and security and the right to equality and non-discrimination. This plea is divided into two parts.

—	First part, alleging infringement of the applicants’ rights to physical integrity, right to liberty and security, right to equality and non-discrimination and rights to respect for privacy and their personal data.

—

Second part, alleging that the infringement by the contested decision of the rights and principles referred to in the first part breaches the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter in that the contested measure is not necessary, appropriate or proportionate to achieve the aims pursued.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/29

Action brought on 11 November 2021 — IL and Others v Parliament

(Case T-724/21)

(2022/C 148/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: IL and 81 other applicants (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	order the annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules for access to buildings at the European Parliament’s three places of work;

—	order the defendant to pay all of the costs, including those relating to the action for suspension of operation of the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles on the processing of personal data. This plea is divided into two parts.

—

—	Second part, alleging infringement of the principles of good faith, openness and minimisation since, when their personal data were collected, the applicants were not informed that those data would be used to give or refuse them access to their place of work.

—	First part, alleging infringement of the applicants’ rights to physical integrity, right to liberty and security, right to equality and non-discrimination and rights to respect for privacy and their personal data.

—

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/30

Action brought on 21 January 2022 — Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament

(Case T-41/22)

(2022/C 148/41)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Koźmiński and T. Siemiński, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2021 on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland (2021/2925(RSP)) in its entirety;

—

in the alternative, in the event that the Court does not take into consideration the application for annulment of the contested resolution in its entirety, annul that resolution in part, that is to say, the part corresponding to point Y, which states: ‘whereas a fundamentalist organisation, Ordo Iuris, which is closely linked to the ruling coalition, has been a driving force behind the campaigns which are undermining human rights and gender equality in Poland, including the attempts to ban abortion, the calls for Poland’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention and the calls for the creation of so-called LGBTI-free zones; whereas cultural and religious values in Poland are therefore being abused as reasons to impede the full realisation of women’s rights, equality for women and their right to make decisions about their own bodies’;

—	order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The first plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the European Parliament to adopt the contested resolution, on the ground that the subject of the resolution does not fall within the competences of the European Union conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties, or, in the alternative, misuse of powers by the instrumental use of the legal form of a resolution in order to circumvent the requirement of amending the Treaties so as to attribute to the European Union competences which it does not possess under the Treaties.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement, by the resolution, of the Treaties or the legal rules relating to the application thereof, namely, infringement of Article 2 TEU, Article 4(2) TEU, Article 6(3) TEU and Article 10 TFEU, in that the resolution:

—	infringes the applicant’s personality rights and interests;

—	is based on unverified and untrue information concerning the factual and legal situation in Poland;

—	contains an unreliable analysis and interpretation of public international law on the issue of abortion;

—

ascribes to the ban on the termination of pregnancy and to the protection of human life in the prenatal phase an alleged contradiction with the values indicated in Article 2 TEU in an unjustified manner, disregarding the fact that the issue of whether abortion is permissible is not part of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, which, in turn:

—	results in discrimination against people supporting the ban on the termination of pregnancy and the protection of human life in the prenatal phase in the social, political and legal life of the European Union;

—	infringes the principle of respect for the national and constitutional identities of the Member States.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/31

Action brought on 31 January 2022 — Conserve Italia and Conserves France v Commission

(Case T-59/22)

(2022/C 148/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Conserve Italia — Consorzio Italiano fra cooperative agricole Soc. coop. agr. (San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy), Conserves France (Tarascon, France) (represented by: L. Di Via, M. Petite, L. Tresoldi and E. Belli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	declare the action admissible;

—	annul European Commission Decision C(2021) 8259 of 19 November 2021 (Case AT.40127 — Canned Vegetables), relating to proceedings pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as regards the calculation of the fine;

—	reduce the amount of the fine and grant any other measure that the Court considers appropriate; and

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs of Conserve Italia e Conserves France relating to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU, the third paragraph of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and point 33 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 by error of fact and law in the classification of Conserve Italia as an undertaking rather than an association of undertakings and by a flaw in the determination of the maximum amount of the penalty.

—

The applicants challenge in this regard the incorrect classification of Conserve Italia as an ‘undertaking’, not an ‘association of undertakings’, for the purposes of applying Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The failure to recognise, in the decision, that Conserve Italia is an ‘association of undertakings’ — according to the specific and autonomous definition developed by European antitrust law — resulted in a serious flaw in the calculation of the maximum amount of the penalty.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU, Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and points 14, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 25 of the Guidelines, by an error in the determination of the basic amount.

—

The applicants claim in this regard that, in the first place, when the European Commission determined the value of the sales to take as a reference for calculating the basic amount of the penalty imposed on them, it erred in taking into account the value of the sales generated throughout the EEA. In the second place, the applicants claim that the application by the European Commission of a proportion of 18 % of the value of the sales is unjustified in the present case. In addition, the European Commission complains that Conserve Italia participated in the infringement during a period corresponding to the entire duration of the infringement, failing to take into account that its participation in each agreement was far more limited and in no way continuous, since the execution of the agreements was subject to various interruptions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/32

Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-62/22)

(2022/C 148/43)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicants: Republic of Estonia (represented by: M. Kriisa)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the European Commission’s Implementing Decision of 17 November 2021, in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 634 057,30;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law — the applicant submits that the European Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 21 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014, (1) read in conjunction with Article 30 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014, (2) and thus came to the incorrect conclusion that the system for the submission of aid applications in Estonia does not comply with those provisions.

2.	Second plea in law — according to the applicant, the European Commission interpreted Article 30(2) of Regulation No 640/2014 in an arbitrary manner and, consequently, applied it incorrectly.

3.	Third plea in law — the applicant submits that the European Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons and the principle of good administration, since it was not able to provide sufficiently clear reasons why the animal replacement as authorised in Estonia does not comply with EU law.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/33

Action brought on 1 February 2022 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND)

(Case T-63/22)

(2022/C 148/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Brooks England Ltd (Smethwick, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Feltrinelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States)

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 BROOKS ENGLAND — Application for registration No 3 298 321

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2021 in Case R 2432/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	uphold the action brought by the plaintiff;

—	entirely annul the contested decision and therefore declare that the contested sign should be registered for all the contested goods;

—	as a subordinary request, to partially annul the contested decision declaring that the contested sign should be registered for at least the contested goods in class 18;

—	order EUIPO to reimburse all legal expenses borne by the plaintiff in connection with the previous and present proceedings.

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 likelihood of confusion between the contested sign and the earlier trademark;

—	Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the evidence of use of the earlier trademark;

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

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

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/34

Action brought on 4 February 2022 — Eurecna v Commission

(Case T-69/22)

(2022/C 148/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision to offset debts contained in the letter of the Commission of 25 November 2021, by which the Commission decided to recover the amount of EUR 22 139,05 from the amount of EUR 417 234,68 distributed in the context of a project funded by the European Union and regarded as recoverable following irregularities allegedly committed at the financial reporting stage; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, divided into four parts.

Single plea, alleging absence of the contested claim.

—

The applicant alleges in this regard infringement of the principle of good administration and diligence of the administrative action relating to the expenditure verification carried out by Ernst & Young (EY); infringement of the rights of the defence relating to the expenditure verification carried out by EY; infringement of the principle of good administration by failing to have regard to the duty of impartiality in the context of the administrative action; and incorrect interpretation of the contract in the report made by EY.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/34

Action brought on 8 February 2022 — Walsall Conduits v EUIPO — Liberty Engineering (Willenhall) (WALSALL CONDUITS)

(Case T-73/22)

(2022/C 148/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Walsall Conduits Ltd (Liverpool, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Bey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liberty Engineering (Willenhall) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark WALSALL CONDUITS — Application for registration No 16 369 944

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2021 in Case R 575/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	uphold the action;

—	annul the contested decision;

—	hold the opposition well-founded and reject the contested trade mark application in its entirety; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Opposition Division of the EUIPO;

—	order EUIPO and Shifter (Willenhall) Limited to pay the costs of proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of the Office.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 11(1), (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 the Council;

—	Infringement of Articles 41(1) and 47(1), (2) of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights;

—	Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 the Council.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/35

Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Prigozhin v Council

(Case T-75/22)

(2022/C 148/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the action of Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin admissible and

in so far as they concern the applicant

—	annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2197 of 13 December 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2195 of 13 December 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses in so far as those two decisions name him as the financier of the Wagner Group;

—	declare that in any event the name of Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin should be immediately withdrawn from the contested measures;

—	order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant submits that the Council failed to comply with the duty to state reasons for the contested measures by not adducing any specific evidence justifying the reference to the applicant’s name in the body of the contested decisions.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. The applicant submits, in that regard, that in the absence of evidence to support his description as ‘financier of the Wagner Group’, the Council could not name him indirectly in the statement of reasons for the listing of the Wagner Group and thus distort the objective initially pursued by the measure.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant maintains that he is not the financier of the Wagner Group and that there is no connection between him and that entity.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that by listing his name in the body of the statement of reasons for the listing of the Wagner Group, the Council violated Articles 10, 6 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/36

Action brought on 9 February 2022 — Schwa-Medico v EUIPO — Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte (STIWELL)

(Case T-76/22)

(2022/C 148/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Schwa-Medico, Medizinische Apparate, Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (Ehringshausen, Germany) (represented by: E. Fortunet and P. Marchiset, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GesmbH (Innsbruck, Austria)

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: European Union word mark STIWELL — European Union trade mark No o 4 072 542

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2021 in Case R 1383/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it refuses to allow the application for the revocation of EU trade mark STIWELL No 4 072 542 for the goods ‘neuromuscular stimulation apparatus’ in Class 10, and in so far as it refuses to fix as the starting point for the revocation date for all the goods the day of the fifth anniversary of the publication of the registration of that mark in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin (21 February 2011);

—	order EUIPO and the company Med-El to pay the costs in connection with the present action.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and an insufficient statement of reasons for its decision in that the Board of Appeal incorrectly analysed the concept of genuine use of the mark by not conducting a global assessment taking account of all the factors and by reference to all the facts;

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and an insufficient statement of reasons for its decision in that the Board of Appeal incorrectly analysed the concept of genuine use of the mark by assessing the specificity of the goods in the light of the activity of the proprietor of the mark and not in the light of the description of the goods;

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and an insufficient statement of reasons for its decision in that the Board of Appeal incorrectly analysed the concept of genuine use of the mark by adopting contradictory reasoning on the alleged specificity of those goods;

—	Error committed by the Board of Appeal in fixing the date on which the revocation took effect, on the basis of having held that a legitimate ground was required and having misinterpreted that legitimate ground.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/37

Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Euranimi v Commission

(Case T-81/22)

(2022/C 148/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia, (1) as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 November 2021, concerning the measures adopted in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding AD670;

—	order the European Commission to bear applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) with regard to the cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from the countries concerned — infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence — manifest error of assessment.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, with regard to the injury and causation assessment for both Indian and Indonesia’s originating products — manifest error of assessment.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging wrong assessment of the Union interest justifying the imposition of anti-dumping duties.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (OJ 2021 L 410, p. 153).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/38

Action brought on 15 February 2022 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)

(Case T-82/22)

(2022/C 148/50)

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 16 December 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.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/38

Action brought on 14 February 2022 — Selimfiber v EUIPO — Qureshi (SPETRA)

(Case T-83/22)

(2022/C 148/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Selimfiber Co. Ltd (Gimpo-si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: J. Klaus and M. Odink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mohammad Sohail Qureshi (Bradford, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SPETRA — Application for registration No 18 271 624

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2021 in Case R 684/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs of and occasioned by this application and other incurred costs; alternatively if the other party before the EUIPO intervenes, hold it and the defendant jointly and severally liable for those costs.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/39

Action brought on 15 February 2022 — Credit Suisse Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-84/22)

(2022/C 148/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Credit Suisse Group AG (Zurich, Switzerland), Credit Suisse AG (Zurich), Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Wesseling and F. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the Commission Decision C(2021) 8612 final of 2 December 2021 in Case AT.40135 — FOREX (Sterling Lads) (the ‘Decision’) pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;

—	in the alternative, partially annul Article 1 of the Decision pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and reduce the fine imposed in Article 2 of the Decision pursuant to Article 261 TFEU;

—	in any event, reduce the amount of the fine imposed in Article 2 of the Decision pursuant to Article 261 TFEU;

—	prescribe, as a measure of organisation of procedure or inquiry pursuant to Article 88(1) and Articles 89(3)(d) or 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court respectively, the production of the settlement decision by the Commission;

—	order the Commission to pay the Applicants’ costs or, in the alternative, an appropriate proportion of their costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 101 TFEU and failed to provide sufficient reasons in finding that the Information Exchange Chats constitute agreements and/or concerted practices. In particular,

—	the Commission failed to adduce the requisite evidence to establish the existence of the Underlying Understanding and, by extension, that the Information Exchange Chats constitute an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU;

—	in the alternative, the evidence relied on by the Commission is incapable of proving to the requisite legal standard that the Information Exchange Chats constitute an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 101 TFEU and provided insufficient reasons in finding that the Information Exchange Chats, seen in isolation or as part of an alleged single and continuous infringement comprising other alleged conduct for which CS is not held liable, had as their object the restriction and/or distortion of competition. In particular,

—	the Commission failed to discharge its burden of proof under Article 101 TFEU that the Information Exchange Chats restrict competition by object;

—	the Commission erred in law by concluding that a legitimate explanation for conduct and pro-competitive effects are irrelevant under Article 101(1) TFEU.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 101 TFEU and provided insufficient reasons in applying the concept of the single and continuous infringement. In particular,

—	the Commission failed to prove and to provide sufficient reasons that there was an overall plan pursuing a common objective to which CS intended to contribute or of which it was aware or could have foreseen;

—	the Commission erred in law by concluding that the Underlying Understanding is an element of an alleged single and continuous infringement.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003, the Guidelines on Fines, the principles of proportionality and equal treatment and the duty to state reasons. In particular,

—	the Commission adopted a value of sales proxy that significantly and arbitrarily overstates CS’ value of sales and therefore the economic importance of the alleged infringement, departing from the concept of ‘value of sales’ in the Guidelines on Fines;

—	the reduction granted to CS for mitigating circumstances is disproportionately low and fails to take into account other mitigating circumstances;

—	the fine imposed on CS significantly overstates the gravity of the alleged infringement;

—	the fine imposed on CS violates the principle of equal treatment;

—	the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasons for the Court to be able to assess the proportionality of CS’ fine calculation relative to that of the settling parties.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of sound administration and violated CS’ rights of defence by failing to conduct a diligent and impartial investigation.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/40

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Homy Casa v EUIPO — Albatros International (Chairs)

(Case T-89/22)

(2022/C 148/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Homy Casa Ltd (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Albatros International GmbH (Nerdlen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design (Chairs) — Community design No 2745 554-0002

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 in Case R 837/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law

—	Misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 thereof.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/41

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-90/22)

(2022/C 148/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in the annex to that decision;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council 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 infringement of the right of defence. In that respect, the applicant raises a number of complaints regarding the infringement of his rights in the course of the procedures which led the Council to adopt and renew the restrictive measures against him and, in particular the infringement of his right to be heard under acceptable conditions.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant’s involvement in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The applicant criticises the context of the review, which preceded the contested renewal of the restrictive measures and disputes any current involvement in the events underpinning the decision to include him in the list of persons covered by Decision 2010/788/CFSP.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/42

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-91/22)

(2022/C 148/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in the annex to that decision;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/42

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-92/22)

(2022/C 148/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in the annex to that decision;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/43

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-93/22)

(2022/C 148/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in the annex to that decision;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/44

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-94/22)

(2022/C 148/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in the annex to that decision;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/44

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-95/22)

(2022/C 148/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in the annex to that decision;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/45

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-96/22)

(2022/C 148/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that decision;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/45

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-97/22)

(2022/C 148/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in the annex to that decision;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/46

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-98/22)

(2022/C 148/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 8 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in the annex to that decision;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/47

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ciar v EUIPO — Motion (Sorting device)

(Case T-100/22)

(2022/C 148/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ciar SpA (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: L. Goglia, S. Lavagnini, B. Villa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Motion SpA (Forlì, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design (Sorting device) — Community design No 002 237 495-0009

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2021 in Case R 50/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and, therefore, confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division or, in any event, declare the invalidity of the contested design;

—	order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement and incorrect application of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

—	Infringement and incorrect application of Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

—	Infringement of Article 63(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

—	Infringement of Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

4.4.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/47

Action brought on 8 March 2022 — RT France v Council

(Case T-125/22)

(2022/C 148/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RT France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Piwnica, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/351 of 1 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine;

—	annul Council Regulation (EU) 2022/350 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine;

—	order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs;

with all the legal consequences that entails.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the rights of the defence and the adversarial principle, enshrined in Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.	Second plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

3.	Third plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the freedom to conduct a business protected by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

4.	Fourth plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of non-discrimination flowing from Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 148

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 65 4 April 2022

Contents		page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2022/C 148/01	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
2022/C 148/02	Case C-9/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Kollaustraße 136 v Finanzamt Hamburg-Oberalster (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 66 — Chargeability of VAT — The time the payment is received — Article 167 — Origin and scope of the right of input VAT deduction — Article 167a — Derogation — Cash accounting — Letting and subletting of a property used for industrial or commercial purposes)	2
2022/C 148/03	Case C-219/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — LM v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Directive 96/71/EC — Article 3(1)(c) — Terms and conditions of employment — Remuneration — Article 5 — Penalties — Limitation period — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 41 — Right to good administration — Article 47 — Effective judicial protection)	3
2022/C 148/04	Case C-485/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — XXXX v HR Rail SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability — Dismissal of a worker who had become permanently incapable of performing the essential functions of the post — Staff member completing training as part of recruitment — Article 5 — Reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities — Requirement to reassign to another post — Obligation subject to it not being a disproportionate burden for the employer)	3
2022/C 148/05	Case C-487/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Philips Orăştie S.R.L. v Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 179 and 183 — Right to deduct VAT — Conditions — Compensation or refund of excess VAT — Additional liabilities — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)	4
2022/C 148/06	Case C-499/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — DIMCO Dimovasili M.I.K.E. v Ypourgos Perivallontos kai Energeias (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 97/23/EC — Pressure equipment — CE marking — Placing on the market and putting into service — Restrictions aimed at ensuring the protection of persons — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — National legislation imposing restrictions on the method of installation of gas pipes)	5
2022/C 148/07	Case C-522/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — OE v VY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Validity — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for divorce — Article 18 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) — Difference between the length of the residence period required for the purposes of determining which court has jurisdiction — Distinction between a resident who is a national of the Member State of the court before which the application is brought and a resident who is not a national of that Member State — No discrimination on grounds of nationality)	5
2022/C 148/08	Case C-564/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — PF, MF v Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 — Control system — Article 33(2)(a) and Article 34 — Recording of catches and fishing effort — Transmission to the European Commission of information concerning the quantities of nephrops caught — Possibility to use data other than those contained in the fishing logbook — Reasonable and scientifically valid method to process and verify data — Closure of fisheries)	6
2022/C 148/09	Case C-595/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UE v ShareWood Switzerland AG, VF (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Law applicable to contractual obligations — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) — Consumer contracts — Choice of applicable law — Article 6(4)(c) — Exclusion of contracts relating to a right in rem in immovable property or to a tenancy of immovable property — Contract of sale, including a lease agreement and a service agreement, relating to trees planted for the sole purpose of being harvested for profits)	7
2022/C 148/10	Case C-156/21: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 16 February 2022 — Hungary v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 — General regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union budget — Protection of the Union budget in the case of breaches of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States — Legal basis — Article 322(1)(a) TFEU — Alleged circumvention of Article 7 TEU and Article 269 TFEU — Alleged infringements of Article 4(1), Article 5(2) and Article 13(2) TEU and of the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and equality of Member States before the Treaties)	7
2022/C 148/11	Case C-157/21: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 16 February 2022 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 — General regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union budget — Protection of the Union budget in the case of breaches of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States — Legal basis — Article 322(1)(a) TFEU — Article 311 TFEU — Article 312 TFEU — Alleged circumvention of Article 7 TEU and Article 269 TFEU — Alleged infringements of Article 4(1), Article 5(2) and Article 13(2) TEU, of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, of Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and of the principles of conferral, legal certainty, proportionality and equality of the Member States before the Treaties — Alleged misuse of powers)	8
2022/C 148/12	Case C-674/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 November 2021 by Residencial Palladium, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 September 2021 in Case T-566/20, Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Palladium Gestión (Palladium Hotel Garden Beach)	9
2022/C 148/13	Case C-675/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 10 November 2021 — Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A. v 2045-Empresa de Segurança, S.A., FL	9
2022/C 148/14	Case C-678/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 November 2021 by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 1 September 2021 in Case T-463/20, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO	10
2022/C 148/15	Case C-679/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 November 2021 by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 September 2021 in Case T-561/20, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO	10
2022/C 148/16	Case C-777/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 15 December 2021 — VB v Comune di Portici	11
2022/C 148/17	Case C-2/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2022 — HK v Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG	11
2022/C 148/18	Case C-8/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 5 January 2022 — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides	12
2022/C 148/19	Case C-12/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 6 January 2022 — UR v 365.bank a.s.	13
2022/C 148/20	Case C-26/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2022 — UF v Land Hesse	14
2022/C 148/21	Case C-53/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2022 — VZ v CA	15
2022/C 148/22	Case C-56/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2022 — PL v État belge	16
2022/C 148/23	Case C-64/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2022 — AB v Land Hesse	16
2022/C 148/24	Case C-85/22: Action brought on 8 February 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria	17
2022/C 148/25	Case C-109/22: Action brought on 15 February 2022 — European Commission v Romania	18
2022/C 148/26	Case C-116/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany	19
	General Court
2022/C 148/27	Case T-195/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — GEA Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC — Decision amending the initial decision annulled — Decision rejecting a request for repayment of the fine — Action for annulment — Actionable measure — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Article 266(1) TFEU)	21
2022/C 148/28	Case T-520/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Heitec v EUIPO — Hetec Datensysteme (HEITEC) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark HEITEC — No account taken of evidence submitted before the Cancellation Division and before the Board of Appeal — Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No genuine use of the trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))	21
2022/C 148/29	Case T-672/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Companhia de Seguros Índico v Commission (Public contracts — Financial Regulation — Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general EU budget and by the EDF for a three-year period — Principle of good faith — Abuse of rights — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)	22
2022/C 148/30	Case T-791/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Sped-Pro v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Rail freight transport services market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Reasonable time — EU interest in pursuing examination of a complaint — Determination of the authority best placed to examine a complaint — Criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning respect for the rule of law — Risk of infringement of a complainant’s rights if a complaint is rejected — Obligation to state reasons)	23
2022/C 148/31	Case T-709/20: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OJ v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition EPSO/AD/380/19 — Decision to refuse to extend the test dates for a competition — Time limits set for passing a selection test in a test centre — Right to a fair procedure — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Equal treatment)	23
2022/C 148/32	Case T-736/20: Order of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — OP v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 — Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)	24
2022/C 148/33	Case T-67/21: Order of the General Court of 4 February 2022 — ultra air v EUIPO — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for invalidity and revocation — European Union word mark ultrafilter international — Request for conversion to a national trade mark application — Revocation proceedings devoid of purpose — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)	24
2022/C 148/34	Case T-459/21: Order of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Sunwhite — Earlier national figurative mark Sunwhite — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)	25
2022/C 148/35	Case T-464/21: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2022 — Faller and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Variation of the conditional marketing authorisation for the Comirnaty medicinal product for human use — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)	26
2022/C 148/36	Case T-739/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 February 2022 — Eurecna v Commission (Interim relief — Public supply contracts — Application for interim measures — Lack of any urgency)	26
2022/C 148/37	Case T-53/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Collard v Parliament and ID (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Member of the Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)	27
2022/C 148/38	Case T-54/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Rivière v Parliament and ID (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Member of the Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)	27
2022/C 148/39	Case T-711/21: Action brought on 4 November 2021 — ID and Others v Parliament	28
2022/C 148/40	Case T-724/21: Action brought on 11 November 2021 — IL and Others v Parliament	29
2022/C 148/41	Case T-41/22: Action brought on 21 January 2022 — Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament	30
2022/C 148/42	Case T-59/22: Action brought on 31 January 2022 — Conserve Italia and Conserves France v Commission	31
2022/C 148/43	Case T-62/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Estonia v Commission	32
2022/C 148/44	Case T-63/22: Action brought on 1 February 2022 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND)	33
2022/C 148/45	Case T-69/22: Action brought on 4 February 2022 — Eurecna v Commission	34
2022/C 148/46	Case T-73/22: Action brought on 8 February 2022 — Walsall Conduits v EUIPO — Liberty Engineering (Willenhall) (WALSALL CONDUITS)	34
2022/C 148/47	Case T-75/22: Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Prigozhin v Council	35
2022/C 148/48	Case T-76/22: Action brought on 9 February 2022 — Schwa-Medico v EUIPO — Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte (STIWELL)	36
2022/C 148/49	Case T-81/22: Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Euranimi v Commission	37
2022/C 148/50	Case T-82/22: Action brought on 15 February 2022 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)	38
2022/C 148/51	Case T-83/22: Action brought on 14 February 2022 — Selimfiber v EUIPO — Qureshi (SPETRA)	38
2022/C 148/52	Case T-84/22: Action brought on 15 February 2022 — Credit Suisse Group and Others v Commission	39
2022/C 148/53	Case T-89/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Homy Casa v EUIPO — Albatros International (Chairs)	40
2022/C 148/54	Case T-90/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Kande Mupompa v Council	41
2022/C 148/55	Case T-91/22: Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Ruhorimbere v Council	42
2022/C 148/56	Case T-92/22: Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Amisi Kumba v Council	42
2022/C 148/57	Case T-93/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ramazani Shadary v Council	43
2022/C 148/58	Case T-94/22: Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Mutondo v Council	44
2022/C 148/59	Case T-95/22: Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Kanyama v Council	44
2022/C 148/60	Case T-96/22: Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Kampete v Council	45
2022/C 148/61	Case T-97/22: Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council	45
2022/C 148/62	Case T-98/22: Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Boshab v Council	46
2022/C 148/63	Case T-100/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ciar v EUIPO — Motion (Sorting device)	47
2022/C 148/64	Case T-125/22: Action brought on 8 March 2022 — RT France v Council	47
2022/C 148/65	Case T-491/20: Order of the General Court of 8 February 2022 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Ou (-Vpro)	48
2022/C 148/66	Case T-665/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — Civitta Eesti v Commission	48
2022/C 148/67	Case T-707/21: Order of the General Court of 8 February 2022 — Hoteles Olivencia v EUIPO — Corporacion H10 Hotels (HOTELES HO)	48