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

(2022/C 257/01)

Last publication

OJ C 244, 27.6.2022

Past publications

OJ C 237, 20.6.2022

OJ C 222, 7.6.2022

OJ C 213, 30.5.2022

OJ C 207, 23.5.2022

OJ C 198, 16.5.2022

OJ C 191, 10.5.2022

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-573/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain Italian zones and agglomerations - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)

(2022/C 257/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by G. Palatiello and P. Pucciariello, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)

Declares that, by having failed to ensure that the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was not systematically and persistently exceeded, — from 2010 up to 2018 inclusive, in zones IT0118 (agglomeration of Turin), IT0306 (agglomeration of Milan), IT0307 (agglomeration of Bergamo), IT0308 (agglomeration of Brescia), IT0711 (municipality of Genoa), IT0906 (agglomeration of Florence) and IT1215 (agglomeration of Rome); — from 2010 up to 2017 inclusive in zone IT0309 (zone A — highly urbanised plain); — from 2010 up to 2012 and from 2014 up to 2018 inclusive, in zone IT1912 (agglomeration of Catania), and — from 2010 up to 2012 and from 2014 up to 2017 inclusive, in zone IT1914 (industrial zones), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe and, by failing to adopt as from 11 June 2010 appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in all those zones and, in particular, by failing to ensure that the air quality plans provide for appropriate measures to ensure that the period of exceedance of that limit value is kept as short as possible, has failed to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, on its own and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to the directive.

2.	Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-730/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematically and persistently exceeding limit values for sulphur dioxide (SO2) in zone BG0006 (South-East), Bulgaria - Article 23(1) and Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)

(2022/C 257/03)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and T. Mitova, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

1.

The Republic of Bulgaria, by failing to ensure that, first, the hourly limit value for sulphur dioxide (S02) as from 2007 up to and including 2018, and, second, the daily fixed limit values for SO2 as from 2007 up to and including 2018, with the exception of 2010 and 2012, were not systematically and persistently exceeded in zone BG006 (South-East) has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and Annex XI of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the fixed limit values for SO2 in that zone and, in particular, by failing to ensure that the plans concerning air quality provide for appropriate measures to ensure that the period during which those limit values are exceeded is as short as possible, has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 23(1) and Annex XV section A of Directive 2008/50/CE.

2.	The Republic of Bulgaria is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — European Commission v Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA)

(Case C-260/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 - Imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Articles 6, 16 and 18 - Proof - Information provided other than by responding to an anti-dumping questionnaire - Weighting of sales affecting the dumping calculation - Article 2(1) and (3) - Calculation of the normal value - Hierarchy between the calculation methods - Article 3(2) and (3) - Injury - Calculation of the undercutting margin - Cross-appeal - Article 2(11) - Full degree of dumping - Article 18 - Exemption from responding to an anti-dumping questionnaire - Lack of non-cooperation)

(2022/C 257/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: initially J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, and subsequently J.-F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, B. Servais and V. Crochet, avocats) and European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) (represented by: H. Hobbelen, B. Vleeshouwers and K. Huyghebaert, advocaten, and J. Rivas, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

3.	Orders the European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Servizio Elettrico Nazionale SpA, ENEL SpA, Enel Energia SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Others

(Case C-377/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Article 102 TFEU - Effect of a practice on the well-being of consumers and on the structure of the market - Exclusionary abuse - Whether the practice is capable of having an exclusionary effect - Use of methods other than those coming within the scope of competition on the merits - Hypothetical as-efficient competitor unable to replicate the practice - Existence of an anticompetitive intent - Opening up of the market for the sale of electricity to competition - Transfer of commercially sensitive information within a group of undertakings in order to preserve a dominant position inherited from a statutory monopoly - Imputability of a subsidiary’s conduct to the parent company)

(2022/C 257/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Servizio Elettrico Nazionale SpA, ENEL SpA, Enel Energia SpA

Defendants: Autorita Grante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, ENEL SpA, Servizio Elettrico Nazionale SpA, Eni Gas e Luca Spa, Eni SpA, Axpo Italia SpA, Gala SpA, E.Ja SpA, Green Network SpA, Ass.ne Codici — Centro per i Diritti del Cittadino

Intervening parties: Green Network SpA, Associazione Italiana di Grossisti di Energia e Trader — AIGET, Ass.ne Codici — Centro per i Diritti del Cittadino, Associazione Energia Libera, Metaenergia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of establishing that a practice constitutes the abuse of a dominant position, it is sufficient, for a competition authority, to prove that that practice is capable of affecting adversely the effective competition structure on the relevant market unless the dominant undertaking concerned demonstrates that the anticompetitive effects which can result from that practice are counterbalanced or even outweighed by positive effects for consumers, in particular in terms of price, choice, quality and innovation.

2.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of excluding that conduct of an undertaking in a dominant position is abusive, the evidence provided by the undertaking in question that that conduct did not have actual restrictive effects must be regarded as not being, in itself, sufficient. That element can constitute evidence that the conduct at issue is not capable of having anticompetitive effects, which, however, will have to be supplemented by other evidence aimed at demonstrating that lack of capability.

3.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of exclusionary abuse by an undertaking in a dominant position must be assessed on the basis of whether that practice is capable of having anticompetitive effects. A competition authority is not required to establish the intention of the undertaking in question to foreclose its competitors by methods or by making use of resources other than those governing competition on the merits. The evidence of such intention is nevertheless a factual circumstance which is capable of being taken into account for the purposes of establishing abuse of a dominant position.

4.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a practice which is lawful in a non-competition law domain can, when implemented by an undertaking in a dominant position, be characterised as ‘abusive’, within the meaning of that provision, if it can have an exclusionary effect and if it is based on methods other than those which are part of competition on the merits. Where those two conditions are fulfilled, the undertaking in the dominant position concerned can nevertheless not fall within the prohibition laid down in Article 102 TFEU by proving that the practice at hand was either justified objectively and proportionate to that justification, or is counterbalanced, or even outweighed, by advantages in terms of efficiency which also benefit consumers.

5.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that when a dominant position is abused by one or a number of subsidiaries belonging to an economic unit, the existence of that unit is sufficient to regard the parent company as being also liable for that abuse. There must be a presumption that such a unit exists if, at the material time, at least the quasi-totality of the capital of those subsidiaries was held, directly or indirectly, by the parent company. The competition authority is not required to provide any additional evidence unless the parent company establishes that it did not have the power to define the conduct of those subsidiaries, which were acting autonomously.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos — Portugal) — GD, ES v Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário SA

(Case C-426/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 5(1) - Principle of equal treatment - Article 3(1)(f) - Concept of ‘basic working and employment conditions of temporary agency workers’ - Compensation for paid annual leave not taken and the corresponding holiday bonus in the event of termination of the employment relationship)

(2022/C 257/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GD, ES

Defendant: Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(f) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the compensation to which temporary agency workers are entitled in the event of termination of their employment relationship with a user undertaking, in respect of paid annual leave not taken and the corresponding holiday bonus, is less than the compensation to which those workers would be entitled, in the same situation and on the same basis, if they had been recruited directly by that user undertaking to occupy the same post for the same period.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — Christoph Klein v European Commission

(Case C-430/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 265 TFEU - Action for failure to act - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices - Article 8(1) and (2) - Safeguard clause procedure - Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device - Prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the European Commission - Absence of a decision - Admissibility - Locus standi - Out of time - Request for action to be taken within a reasonable time - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons of the General Court of the European Union)

(2022/C 257/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by C. Hermes, F. Thiran and M. Jáuregui Gómez, and subsequently by C. Hermes and F. Thiran, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 2 July 2020, Klein v Commission (T-562/19, EU:T:2020:300), in so far as the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application made by Mr Christoph Klein under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the European Commission unlawfully failed to act in the safeguard clause procedure initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 January 1998 and adopt a decision in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices in respect of the device Inhaler Broncho Air®;

2.	Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a decision on the merits;

3.	Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by RR, JG

(Case C-505/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union - Directive 2014/42/EU - Article 4 - Confiscation - Article 7 - Freezing - Article 8 - Procedural guarantees - Freezing and confiscation of property belonging to a person unconnected with the criminal proceedings - National legislation not providing for third party remedies during court proceedings and not allowing for the possible return of the property before the end of the criminal proceedings)

(2022/C 257/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: RR, JG

Intervener: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, where property is frozen as the instrumentalities or alleged proceeds of an offence, the owner of that property, a third party acting in good faith, has no right, during the judicial phase of the criminal proceedings, to apply to the competent court for the return of that property.

2.

Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/42 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the confiscation of property belonging to a third party acting in good faith and used as an instrumentality of an offence, even where that property has been made available by that third party for the permanent use of the accused person.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Schneider Electric SE and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

(Case C-556/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 90/435/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Article 4 and Article 7(2) - Prevention of economic double taxation of dividends)

(2022/C 257/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Schneider Electric SE, Axa SA, BNP Paribas SA, Engie SA, Orange SA, L’Air Liquide, société anonyme pour l’étude et l’exploitation des procédés Georges Claude

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be interpreted as precluding national legislation — which provides that a parent company is liable for an advance payment of tax in the event of a redistribution to its shareholders of profits paid by its subsidiaries which gives rise to the allocation of a tax credit, where those profits have not been subject to corporation tax at the ordinary rate — where the sums due in respect of that advance payment of tax exceed the 5 % ceiling provided for in Article 4(2) of that directive. Such an advance payment of tax is not covered by Article 7(2) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against BV

(Case C-570/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Fraudulent concealment of tax due - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 49 - Article 50 - Principle ne bis in idem - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the principle ne bis in idem - Requirement to provide for clear and precise rules - Possibility of taking into account the interpretation of national legislation by national courts - Need to provide for rules ensuring the proportionality of all of the penalties imposed - Penalties of different kinds)

(2022/C 257/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

BV

Intervening party: Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Haute-Savoie

Operative part of the judgment

The fundamental right guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that

—

it does not preclude a situation whereby the limitation of the duplication of proceedings and penalties of a criminal nature in the event of fraudulent concealment or omissions from a return relating to value added tax (VAT) provided for by national legislation to the most serious cases is based only on settled case-law interpreting restrictively the legal provisions laying down the conditions for the application of that duplication, provided that it is reasonably foreseeable, at the time when the offence is committed, that that offence is liable to be the subject of a duplication of proceedings and penalties of a criminal nature, but

—

it precludes national legislation which does not ensure, in cases of the combination of a financial penalty and a custodial sentence, by means of clear and precise rules, where necessary as interpreted by the national courts, that all of the penalties imposed do not exceed the seriousness of the offence identified.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — W.J. v L.J. and J.J., legally represented by A.P.

(Case C-644/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Determination of the applicable law - Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations - Article 3 - Habitual residence of the creditor - Point in time when habitual residence is to be determined - Wrongful retention of a child)

(2022/C 257/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: W.J.

Respondents: L.J. and J.J., legally represented by A.P.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/941/EC of 30 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the law applicable to the maintenance claim of a minor child removed by one of his or her parents to the territory of a Member State, the fact that a court of that Member State has ordered, in separate proceedings, the return of that child to the State where he or she was habitually resident with his or her parents immediately before his or her removal is not sufficient to prevent that child from acquiring habitual residence on the territory of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 — Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-718/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty)

(2022/C 257/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Gustafsson, P. Němečková and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Comune di Lerici v Provincia di La Spezia

(Case C-719/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Waste management - In-house award - Directive 2014/24/EU - Articles 12 and 72 - Loss of ‘similar control’ conditions as a result of a business combination - Possibility for the successor operator to continue providing the service)

(2022/C 257/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Lerici

Defendant: Provincia di La Spezia

Interveners: IREN SpA, ACAM Ambiente SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which the performance of a public contract, initially awarded without any tendering procedure to an in-house entity over which the contracting authority exercised, jointly, a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments, is automatically continued by the economic operator which acquired that entity, following a tendering procedure, where that contracting authority does not have such control over that operator and does not hold any shares in its capital.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — HJ v Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

(Case C-101/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/94/EC - Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency - Article 2(2) - Concept of ‘employee’ - Article 12(a) and (c) - Limitations on the responsibility of the guarantee institutions - Person exercising, on the basis of a contract of employment entered into with a trading company, the functions of a management board member and chief executive officer of that company - Concurrent exercise of functions - National case-law refusing that person the benefit of the guarantees laid down by that directive)

(2022/C 257/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HJ

Defendant: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) and Article 12(a) and (c) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as precluding national case-law according to which a person who, on the basis of a valid contract of employment under national law, performs concurrently the duties of chief executive officer and of a member of a statutory body of a trading company cannot be regarded as an employee within the meaning of that directive and, therefore, cannot benefit from the guarantees provided for by that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — absoluts -bikes and more- GmbH & Co. KG v the-trading-company GmbH

(Case C-179/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 6(1)(m) - Distance contract between a consumer and a trader - Obligation of the trader to inform the consumer of the existence and the conditions of a manufacturer’s commercial guarantee - Conditions under which such an obligation arises - Content of the information to be provided to the consumer about the manufacturer’s commercial guarantee - Impact of Article 6(2) of Directive 1999/44/EC)

(2022/C 257/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: absoluts -bikes and more- GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: the-trading-company GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 6(1)(m) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards the manufacturer’s commercial guarantee, the information requirement imposed on the trader by that provision does not arise from the mere fact that that guarantee exists, but only where the consumer has a legitimate interest in obtaining information concerning that guarantee in order to decide whether to enter into a contractual relationship with the trader. Such a legitimate interest is established, inter alia, where the trader makes the manufacturer’s commercial guarantee a central or decisive element of its offer. In order to determine whether the guarantee constitutes a central or decisive element of the offer, account must be taken of the content and general layout of the offer with regard to the goods concerned, the importance of referring to the manufacturer’s commercial guarantee for sales or advertising purposes, the space occupied by that reference in the offer, the likelihood of mistake or confusion which that reference might trigger in the mind of the average consumer — who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect with respect to the different rights which he or she may exercise under a guarantee or to the real identity of the guarantor — whether or not there might be explanations relating to other guarantees covering the goods, and any other element capable of establishing an objective need to protect the consumer;

2.

Article 6(1)(m) of Directive 2011/83, read in conjunction with the second indent of Article 6(2) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as meaning that the information which must be provided to the consumer with regard to the conditions of the manufacturer’s commercial guarantee includes all details relating to the conditions of application and implementation of such a guarantee which allow the consumer to decide whether or not to enter into a contractual relationship with the trader.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — R. en R. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-189/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Annex II - Statutory management requirement 10 - Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 - Article 55, first paragraph and first sentence of second paragraph - Direct support schemes - Common rules - Reduction or exclusion of support received under the CAP in whole or in part - Non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules - Use of a plant protection product which is not or is no longer authorised in the Member State concerned and, in the latter scenario, the use-by date of which has expired)

(2022/C 257/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R. en R.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Operative part of the judgment

Statutory management requirement 10, as is provided for in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, which makes reference to the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers also the use of a plant protection product which is not or is no longer authorised in the Member State concerned and, in the latter scenario, the use-by date of which has expired.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v DSR — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

(Case C-218/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Rates - Temporary provisions for particular labour-intensive services - Point 2 of Annex IV - Renovation and repairing of private dwellings - Application of a reduced rate of VAT to repair and maintenance services for lifts in residential buildings)

(2022/C 257/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Respondent: DSR — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘renovation and repairing of private dwellings’, within the meaning of that provision, covers repair and renovation services for lifts in residential buildings, excluding maintenance services for such lifts.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union

(Case C-242/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 - Article 2b and Article 9(2) - Decision 2010/788/CFSP - Article 3(2) and Article 9(2) - Applicant continuing to be included on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 - Right to be heard)

(2022/C 257/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Évariste Boshab (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De. Wolf, T. Payan and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, S. Lejeune initially, subsequently by S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Rejects the appeal;

2.	Orders Mr Évariste Boshab to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Estaleiros Navais de Peniche SA v Município de Aveiro, Navaltagus — Reparação e Construção Naval SA, Navalrocha — Sociedade de Construção e Reparações Navais SA

(Case C-787/21) (1)

(Request for a preliminary reference - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(3) - Interest in bringing proceedings - Access to the review procedures - Tenderer excluded by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final, as a result of failing to challenge all the grounds for rejection of its tender - No interest in bringing proceedings)

(2022/C 257/19)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Estaleiros Navais de Peniche SA

Defendants: Município de Aveiro, Navaltagus — Reparação e Construção Naval SA, Navalrocha — Sociedade de Construção e Reparações Navais SA

Operative part of the order

Article 1(3) of 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, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as precluding a tenderer who was eliminated from a public procurement procedure by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final from contesting the decision to award that contract. In that regard, it is irrelevant that the unsuccessful tenderer submits that it could potentially be awarded the contract in the case if, following the annulment of that decision, the contracting authority were to decide to launch a new award procedure.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 16.12.2021.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 September 2020 — Fastweb SpA and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-468/20)

(2022/C 257/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Fastweb SpA, Tim SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA

Respondent: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Questions referred

1.

Does the correct interpretation of Article 267 TFEU require the national court, against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, to make a reference for a preliminary ruling on a question of interpretation of the relevant [EU] law in the main proceedings, even where there is no doubt as to the interpretation of the relevant EU provision — taking into account the terminology and meaning specific to [EU] law attributable to the wording of the relevant provision, the applicable European regulatory framework and its underlying objectives of protection, considering the stage of development of EU law when the relevant provision is to be applied in the national proceedings — but it is not possible to establish in detail, from a subjective point of view, with regard to the conduct of other courts, that the interpretation of the referring court is the same as the one likely to be given by the courts of the other Member States and by the Court of Justice, to which the same question is referred?

2.

Does the correct interpretation of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, and of the harmonised regulatory framework as enshrined in Directives 2002/19/EC, (1) 2002/20/EC, (2) 2002/21/EC (3) and 2002/22/EC (4) — and in particular in Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC, (5) Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC, and Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC (6) — preclude a national rule such as that inferred from the provisions of Articles 13, 70 and 71 of Decreto Legislativo n. 259/03 (Legislative Decree No 259/03) in conjunction with Article 2(12)(h) and (l) of Legge n. 481/1995 (Law No 481/1995) and Article 1(6)(2) of Legge n. 249/1997 (Law No 249/1997), which gives the national regulatory authority in the electronic communications sector the power to impose: (i) for mobile telephony, a time frame for the renewal of offers and for billing of at least four weeks, with the simultaneous introduction of the obligation for the relevant economic operators that adopt a time frame for the renewal of offers and for billing which is on a non-monthly basis, to inform users promptly by SMS that the offer has been renewed; (ii) for fixed telephony, a timeframe for the renewal of offers and for billing at intervals of one month or multiples thereof and (iii) in the case of offers that are bundled with fixed telephony, the time frame applicable to fixed telephony?

3.

Does the correct interpretation and application of the principle of proportionality, in conjunction with Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the harmonised regulatory framework as enshrined in Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC — and in particular in Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC, Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC, and Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC — preclude the adoption of regulatory measures by the national regulatory authority in the electronic communications sector aimed at imposing: (i) for mobile telephony, a time frame for the renewal of offers and for billing of at least four weeks, with the simultaneous introduction of the obligation for the relevant economic operators that adopt a time frame for the renewal of offers and for billing which is on a non-monthly basis, to inform users promptly by SMS that the offer has been renewed; (ii) for fixed telephony, a time frame for the renewal of offers and for billing at intervals of one month or multiples thereof and (iii) in the case of offers that are bundled with fixed telephony, the time frame applicable to fixed telephony?

4.

Does the correct interpretation and application of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, in conjunction with Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the harmonised regulatory framework as enshrined in Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC — and in particular in Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC, Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC, and Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC — preclude the adoption of regulatory measures by the national regulatory authority in the electronic communications sector aimed at imposing: (i) for mobile telephony, a time frame for the renewal of offers and for billing of at least four weeks, with the simultaneous introduction of the obligation for the relevant economic operators that adopt a time frame for the renewal of offers and for billing which is on a non-monthly basis, to inform users promptly by SMS that the offer has been renewed; (ii) for fixed telephony, a time frame for the renewal of offers and for billing at intervals of one month or multiples thereof; (iii) in the case of offers that are bundled with fixed telephony, the time frame applicable to fixed telephony?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7).

(2)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).

(3)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

(4)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

(5)  Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37).

(6)  Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 11).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno (Italy) lodged on 13 October 2020 — Criminal proceedings against OL

(Case C-517/20)

(2022/C 257/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno

Party to the main proceedings

OL

Questions referred

1.

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding of competition laid down in Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, and the precept of reasonableness implicit therein, preclude national legislation which, as a result of a national provision or act having the force of law, has the effect of extending existing licences and other collection rights, issued by means of invitations to tender or a regularisation procedure (without a tender), the normal deadline for which had already been set for June 2016?

2.	Do Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU preclude national legislation which, by means of the direct-award mechanism, implemented via an extension, not preceded by an invitation to tender, unduly seals off a national market?

3.

Do Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU preclude national legislation which, in the absence of a new tendering procedure, recognises all licences already declared unlawful by successive rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union as valid in the national market, thereby preventing the entry of new foreign operators?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) made on 21 December 2020 — Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited v Commissioner of Income Tax

(Case C-705/20)

(2022/C 257/22)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited

Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax

Question referred

Would the provision of tax relief by the Commissioner of Income Tax under the ITA 2010 for tax paid in the US in respect of the Appellant’s royalty income, infringe the Decision (1) or is otherwise prevented by it?

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State Aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime (notified under document C(2018) 7848) (OJ 2019, L 119, p. 151).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Kula (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 August 2021 — OP, MN, KL, IJ, GH, EF, CD and AB v Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

(Joined Cases C-529/21, C-530/21, C-531/21, C-532/21, C-533/21, C-534/21, C-535/21 and С-536/21)

(2022/C 257/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad — Kula

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: OP, MN, KL, IJ, GH, EF, CD and AB

Defendant: Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

Questions referred

1.

Does Directive 2003/88/EC (1) apply where characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil service protection services inevitably conflict with it, given that: Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC provides that that directive is to apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private, within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC; (2) Article 2(2) of Directive 89/391/EEC provides that that directive is not to be applicable where characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil protection services inevitably conflict with it?

2.

When appraising the equivalence of the appropriate protection and prevention services or facilities within the meaning of Article 12(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of a category of workers who perform night work and whose night working hours are not more than seven hours in any 24 hours by comparison with another category of workers who also perform night work and whose night working hours are not more than eight hours, but who have advantages such as longer leave, higher retirement allowances and higher additional remuneration for seniority, is it necessary to take the advantages which workers in the second category enjoy into consideration?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 05 Volume 007 P. 3).

(2)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 05 Volume 002 P. 88 — 96).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Kula (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 November 2021 — AB, BC, CD, DE, EF, FG and GH v Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

(Joined Cases C-732/21, C-733/21, C-734/21, C-735/21, C-736/21, C-737/21 and C-738/21)

(2022/C 257/24)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Kula

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AB, BC, CD, DE, EF, FG and GH

Defendant: Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Directorate General for fire safety and civil protection of the Ministry of the Interior, Bulgaria)

Questions referred

1.

Is Directive 2003/88/EC (1) applicable where characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil protection services, inevitably conflict with it, in view of the fact that: Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC provides that that directive is to apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private, within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC; (2) Article 2(2) of Directive 89/391/EEC provides that that directive is not applicable where characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil protection services inevitably conflict with it?

2.

In assessment of whether the appropriate protection facilities within the meaning of Article 12(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC for one category of workers who perform night work where the length of their night work does not exceed 7 hours in any 24-hour period are equivalent to those for a different category of workers who also carry out night work and for whom the length of their night work does not exceed 8 hours but who enjoy benefits such as more leave, higher retirement pensions and higher additional remuneration for length of service, should the benefits enjoyed by workers in the second category be taken into account?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

(2)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by TUIfly GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-619/18 TUIfly GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-764/21 P)

(2022/C 257/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: TUIfly GmbH (represented by: L. Giesberts and D. Westarp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 19 May 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Vorarlberg (Austria) lodged on 28 January 2022 — NK

(Case C-55/22)

(2022/C 257/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Vorarlberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: NK

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Feldkirch

Question referred

Is the principle of [ne] bis in idem, as guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter, to be interpreted as meaning that the competent administrative penal authority of a Member State is prevented from imposing a fine on a person for infringement of a provision of the legislation on games of chance if administrative penal proceedings brought previously against the same person for an infringement of a different provision of the legislation on games of chance (or, more generally, a rule from the same field of law), which were based on the same facts, were finally terminated after an oral hearing with the taking of evidence had been held?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di pace di Rimini (Italy) lodged on 7 March 2022 — BL v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-190/22)

(2022/C 257/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Ufficio del Giudice di pace di Rimini

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BL

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Questions referred

1.

Does EU law, and in particular Articles 15, 20, 30 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, clauses 2 and 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and laid down in Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (1) and the fundamental principle of the independence and irremovability of European judges, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice in UX (EU:C:2020:572), preclude a national provision such as Article 29 of Legislative Decree No 116 of 13 July 2017 (‘Legislative Decree No 116/2017’), which, without objective justification, discriminates against the applicant, a magistrate, with respect to the working conditions of comparable professional judges, in the following context: — the applicant, who has served as a magistrate without interruption since 2002, is not yet 70 years of age (but will turn 70 in 2022), and as at 15 August 2017 had not completed more than 16 years of effective service as a lay judge; — therefore, although the national provision (Article 29(1) of Legislative Decree No 116/2017) allows her to continue to hold judicial office until the age of 70, the applicant cannot take part in the first assessment procedure for confirmation in the shortlist (ruolo ad esaurimento) of lay judges, which will be announced by the Consiglio superiore della magistratura (Supreme Council of the Judiciary, Italy) in 2022, as provided for by Article 29(3) of Legislative Decree No 116/2017; — as a further consequence, since she is unable to apply to take part in the assessment procedure for confirmation in the shortlist planned in 2022, the applicant — who had already left judicial office by 31 December 2021 because she had reached the maximum age of 68 under the previous rules — could not be reinstated with effect from 1 January 2022 because the new legislation, although providing that anyone employed on 15 August 2017 should remain in post until the age of 70, also provides that anyone not in a position to apply for confirmation in post should leave the service (Article 29(9) of Legislative Decree No 116/2017); — on the basis of that national legislation, the applicant will only receive from the Italian Government compensation of EUR 1 500 to EUR 2 500 per year for each year of service, in relation to the number of hearings conducted during the year, subject to a maximum amount of EUR 50 000, relinquishing all remuneration, normative and contributory rights sought in the proceedings pending before the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (TAR) Emilia Romagna (Regional Administrative Court, Emilia Romagna, Italy) and guaranteed by EU law for the judicial service performed as an employee, but not recognised as such by the Italian Government, including the coverage of contributions in respect of the employment relationship and the resulting social security benefits; — the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia Romagna, by protective measure of 9 February 2022, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in UX and going against Italian legislation and the opinion of 16-17 February 2022 of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, ordered the applicant to be reinstated as a magistrate until the age of 70; — on 1 March 2022, the President of the Tribunale di Rimini (District Court, Rimini), in compliance with the protective measure issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia Romagna, ordered the applicant’s immediate return to service; — by way of compensation for the blatant and continued infringement by the Italian Government of EU law on the legal status and rights of lay judges, the referring judge is being asked to award a sum corresponding to the remuneration that the applicant should have received from 10 to 28 February 2022, in an amount equal to that of a comparable professional judge, which has its legal basis in the protective order for return to service issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia Romagna, but runs counter to Italian legislation, which, while acknowledging the infringement of EU law, on the one hand precludes any possibility of the applicant returning to service until the age of 70 — the applicant having been forced to leave office by 31 December 2021 following a protective measure issued by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) in breach of the judgment of the Court of Justice in UX — and, on the other hand, limits the compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant to a fixed amount predetermined by law, which is much less than the damage actually suffered as a result of the infringement of rights guaranteed by the EU?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 267 TFEU, clauses 2 and 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and laid down in Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and the fundamental principle of the independence and irremovability of European judges, preclude a national provision — such as Article 21 of Legislative Decree No 116 of 13 July 2017 — which exposes the referring judge (also a magistrate), without effective legal, economic and social security protections, who intends to apply EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in UX, disapplying national provisions precluding the recognition of the protection sought, to the automatic termination of judicial office by bodies of the Italian State (a party in the main proceedings), such as the Supreme Council of the Judiciary and the Ministero della giustizia (Ministry of Justice), without an inter partes procedure and without disciplinary proceedings before the entry into force of Legislative Decree No 116/2017?

3.

If the answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative, is there a violation of the ‘rule of law’, according to the concept defined in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, (2) in a situation in Italy in which: — the applicant and 4 769 other lay judges, who were already employed on 15 August 2017, including this referring judge, are deprived of normative, economic and social security protections in the working conditions provided for comparable professional judges, and therefore cannot hold judicial office independently and irremovably; — the Italian Government and the ‘employer’, the Ministry of Justice, as well as the Italian Parliament, the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, the Suprema Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) and the Council of State systematically refuse to recognise the primacy of EU law and to apply the case-law of the Court of Justice on the legal status and rights guaranteed by EU law to the applicant and the 4 769 lay judges performing judicial functions in the same conditions as professional judges; — 4 769 lay judges, including this referring judge and excluding the applicant, already employed on 15 August 2017, will have to waive any right guaranteed by EU law if they intend, in order to remain in post, to undergo a new assessment procedure so that if successful they can continue to hold judicial office until the age of 70, even though all the lay judges were confirmed in post until 31 May 2024 by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary and by the Ministry of Justice, under the legislation in force until 31 December 2021, at least until such time as they must leave office because they have reached the maximum age, and even though, after the position was made permanent, the conditions undermining the independence and irremovability of lay judges who were given permanent positions continued to exist; — the financial aid covered by the EU budget for the reform of civil and criminal justice in Italy to ensure a prompt and fair trial, as defined by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), does not include any measure to support the lay judiciary and is mainly aimed at the fixed-term employment of 16 500 administrative assistants recruited for the ‘office for proceedings’ (ufficio del processo), employed by the Ministry of Justice on the same economic terms as the lay judiciary who have been given permanent positions, but subject to conditions of irremovability on a disciplinary level throughout the period of employment, which is not recognised for the lay judiciary, even after being given permanent positions?

4.

If the first three questions are answered in the affirmative, are Article 278 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice unlawful, for being contrary to Articles 2, 6 and 19 of the Treaty [on European Union], in so far as they do not allow the Court of Justice, in the context of preliminary ruling proceedings pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, to adopt the necessary interim measures, including the suspension of national legislative acts undermining the rule of law and harming the financial interests of the Union according to the principles and conditionalities laid down in Regulation 2020/2092?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

(2)  OJ 2020 L 433I, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2022 — F v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-208/22)

(2022/C 257/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

1.

Should the Dublin Regulation, (1) in view of recitals 3, 32 and 39 thereof, and read in conjunction with Articles 1, 4, 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted and applied in such a way that the principle of inter-State trust is not divisible, so that serious and systematic infringements of EU law committed by the potentially responsible Member State, before transfer, with respect to third-country nationals who are not (yet) Dublin returnees absolutely preclude transfer to that Member State?

2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, should Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, read in conjunction with Articles 1, 4, 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, if the Member State potentially responsible infringes EU law in a serious and systematic way, the transferring Member State cannot, within the framework of the Dublin Regulation, rely blindly on the principle of inter-State trust but must eliminate all doubts or must demonstrate that, after the transfer, the applicant will not be placed in a situation which is contrary to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

3.

What evidence can the applicant use in support of his arguments that Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation precludes his transfer, and what standard of proof should be applied? In the light of the references to the Union acquis in the recitals of the Dublin Regulation, does the transferring Member State have a duty of cooperation or verification, or, in the event of serious and systematic infringements of fundamental rights with respect to third-country nationals, is it necessary to obtain individual guarantees from the Member State responsible that the applicant’s fundamental rights will (indeed) be respected after the transfer? Is the answer to this question different if the applicant lacks evidence in so far as he is unable to support his consistent and detailed statements with documents, when he cannot be expected to do so, given the nature of the statements?

4.	Is the answer to the foregoing questions under III different if the applicant demonstrates that complaining to the authorities and/or recourse to legal remedies in the responsible Member State will not be possible and/or effective?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2022 — Stappert Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hanover (Germany)

(Case C-210/22)

(2022/C 257/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stappert Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hanover

Questions referred

1.

Does the term ‘hollow profiles’ in the rule of origin on subheading 7304 41 HS of Annex 22-01 UCC-DR, (1) which makes the acquisition of origin conditional on the ‘change from hollow profiles of subheading 7304 49’ (Rule of Origin for Hollow Profiles), cover hot-formed primary material under subheading 7304 49 HS, straight and of uniform wall thickness, which does not meet the requirements of a technical standard for seamless hot-formed stainless steel pipes and from which pipes with a different cross-section and wall thickness are produced by way of cold working?

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative or need not be answered: does the Rule of Origin for Hollow Profiles infringe Article 60(2), and 284 UCC (2) and 290 TFEU because (a) it lacks reasons, (b) it is too vague or (c) machining processes are excluded from the determination of origin, which would confer origin under Article 60(2) UCC [?]

3.

If the second question referred is answered in the affirmative: is the acquisition of origin of goods in subheading 7304 41 HS in the main proceedings determined in accordance with the rule of origin for subheading 7304 41 HS of Annex 22-01 UCC-DR ‘CTH’, the residual rule of Chapter 73 HS in Annex 22-01 UCC-DR or in accordance with Article 60(2) UCC?

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

Action brought on 25 March 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-220/22)

(2022/C 257/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—

Declare that, by systematically and persistently exceeding the annual limit value of NO2, from 1 January 20202 onwards, in the zones PT-3001 Lisboa Norte, PT-1004 Porto Litoral and PT-1009 Entre Douro e Minho (previously PT-1001 Braga), Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, (1) read in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI thereto;

—

Declare that Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, individually and read in conjunction with Part A of Annex XV to that directive, in relation to all of those zones, and in particular its obligation, under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1), to take appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible;

—	order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The data submitted by Portugal show that that Member State has, since 1 January 2010, been in breach of its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI thereto, in which reference is made to the zones Porto Litoral (PT-1004), Entre Douro e Minho (PT-1009) and Lisboa Norte (PT-3001).

Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities have failed to adopt or implement all appropriate measures required to ensure that the exceedance period, in the zones Lisboa Norte (PT-3001), Porto Litoral (PT-1004) and Entre Douro e Minho (PT-1009), in respect of the annual limit value of NO2 laid down in Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI thereto, was kept as short as possible in accordance with the requirements under Article 23(1) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 March 2022 — Nexive Commerce Srl and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

(Case C-226/22)

(2022/C 257/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Nexive Commerce Srl, Nexive Scarl, Nexive Services Srl, Nexive Network Srl, Nexive SpA, BRT SpA, A.I.C.A.I. Associazione Italiana Corrieri Aerei Internazionali, DHL Express (Italy) Srl, TNT Global Express Srl, Fedex Express Italy Srl, United Parcel Service Italia Srl, General Logistics Systems Enterprise Srl, General Logistics Systems Italy SpA, Federal Express Europe Inc. Filiale Italiana

Respondents: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred

1.

Must the fourth indent of the second subparagraph of Article 9(2), Article 9(3) and Article 22 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, (1) as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services, (2) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation, such as that laid down in Italian law (in Article 1(65) and (66) of legge 23 dicembre 2005, n. 266 (Law No 266 of 23 December 2005) and Article 65 of decreto legge 24 aprile 2017, n. 50 convertito, con modificazioni, dalla Legge 21 giugno 2017, n. 96 (Decree-Law No 50 of 24 April 2017, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 96 of 21 June 2017)), that makes it possible to place the obligation to contribute financially to the operating costs of the regulatory authority for postal services exclusively on postal service providers, including those not providing services falling within the scope of the universal service, thereby allowing the possibility of excluding any form of public co-financing from the national budget?

2.

Must the fourth indent of the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) and Article 22 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services, be interpreted as meaning that they make it possible to include, in the costs that can be financed by postal service operators, costs to be incurred for regulatory activities concerning postal services outside the scope of the universal service, and costs for administrative and policy-making structures (‘cross-sector’ structures) whose activity, although not directly aimed at regulating the postal services markets, nevertheless contributes to the performance of all the Authority’s institutional tasks, with the consequent possibility that they might be indirectly and partially (pro rata) allocated to the postal services sector?

3.

Do the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the fourth indent of the second subparagraph of Article 9(2), Article 9(3) and Article 22 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services, preclude national legislation, such as the Italian provisions (laid down in Article 1(65) and (66) of Law No 266 of 23 December 2005 and Article 65 of Decree-Law No 50 of 24 April 2017, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 96 of 21 June 2017), imposing an obligation on postal sector providers to contribute to the financing of the regulatory authority for the postal sector, without any possibility of distinguishing the position of express courier service providers from that of universal service providers and, therefore, without any possibility of appreciating the different intensity of the regulatory activities carried out by the national regulatory authority in relation to the different types of postal services?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 1 April 2022 — État belge v Autorité de protection des données

(Case C-231/22)

(2022/C 257/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État belge

Respondent: Autorité de protection des données

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s official gazette — vested with a public task of publishing and archiving official documents, which, under the applicable national legislation, is responsible for publishing official documents whose publication is ordered by third-party public bodies, as they stand when received from those bodies after the latter have themselves processed the personal data contained in those documents, without the national legislature having granted the official gazette any discretion over the content of the documents to be published or the purpose and means of publication — has the status of data controller?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 5(2) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that only the official gazette in question need comply with the data controller’s responsibilities under that provision, to the exclusion of the third-party public bodies which have previously processed the data contained in the official documents whose publication they are requesting, or are those responsibilities incumbent cumulatively on each of the successive controllers?

---

(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).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 5 April 2022 — État belge and Promo 54 v Promo 54 and État belge

(Case C-239/22)

(2022/C 257/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: État belge, Promo 54

Respondents: Promo 54, État belge

Question referred

Must Article 12(1) and (2) and Article 135(1)(j) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where the Member State has not defined the detailed rules for the application of the criterion of first occupation to converted immovable property, the supply, after conversion, of a building in respect of which, before conversion, there had been first occupation within the meaning of Article 12(1)(a) or the third subparagraph of Article 12(2) of the directive remains exempt from value added tax?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Portugal) lodged on 6 April 2022 –TL

(Case C-242/22)

(2022/C 257/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Évora

Parties to the main proceedings

TL

Other party to the proceedings: Ministério Público

Question referred

Is it possible to interpret Articles 1 to 3 of [Directive 2010/64/EU] (1) and Article 3 of [Directive 2012/13/EU] (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, alone or in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, as meaning that they do not preclude a provision of national law which imposes a penalty of relative nullity, which must be pleaded, for failure to appoint an interpreter and to translate essential procedural documents for an accused person who does not understand the language of the proceedings, and which permits the rectification of that type of nullity owing to the passage of time?

---

(1)  Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 22 April 2022 — Global NRG Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Zrt. v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

(Case C-277/22)

(2022/C 257/35)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Global NRG Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Zrt.

Defendant: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

Other party intervening in support of the defendant: FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt.

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 41(17) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (‘the Directive’) (1) be interpreted, in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as meaning that it precludes national legislation according to which, in the procedures by which the regulatory authority of that Member State sets system usage charges, remuneration for any services provided by system operators under a special tariff and connection fees, only the system operator is recognised as a party directly affected and, as such, the only party having a right of appeal against a decision made in that procedure?

2.

If the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, must Article 41(17) of the Directive be interpreted, in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as meaning that where that article is applied to a case such as that in the main proceedings, an actor in the natural gas market in a situation such as that of the applicant, which, under a decision by the regulatory authority of the Member State setting the system usage charges, remuneration for any services provided by system operators under a special tariff and connection fees, is charged a tariff by the system manager for a service that can be provided under a special tariff, must be found to be a party affected by that decision and, as such, to have a right of appeal against it?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).

Appeal brought on 22 April 2022 by Mr Michaël Julien against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 24 February 2022 in Case T-442/21, Rhiannon Thomas and Michaël Julien v Council of the European Union

(Case C-285/22 P)

(2022/C 257/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Michaël Julien (represented by: J. Fouchet and J.-N. Caubet-Hilloutou, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the order in Case T-442/21 delivered on 24 February 2022 by the General Court of the European Union;

—

annul decision 2021/689 (1) taken by the Council of the European Union on 29 April 2021, in so far as it approves Article COMPROV.16 of the Trade Agreement signed on 30 December 2020 by the European Union and the United Kingdom, and in so far as that agreement does not continue to ensure freedom of movement for British nationals with close family and property ties in the European Union;

—	order the European Union to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees of EUR 5 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant submits that the organisation of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union is, with respect to the rights of individuals, narrowly conceived, and that the Trade Agreement’s disregard for the rights of individuals affects his situation as a British citizen of French origin, with French family and as the owner of a property in France in which he regularly resides for more than 90 days.

Consequently, the appellant has an interest which gives him standing to bring proceedings against the decision to conclude the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU by failing to acknowledge it, with the result that the Court should set aside the order of the General Court and rule on the substance of the case.

In particular, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the criteria for admissibility of the action laid down by the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. First, the contested acts, as acts of general application not subject to the legislative procedure, are regulatory acts; secondly, since the Trade Agreement makes no provision for British citizens who have retained close personal, family or property ties with the European Union, it does not entail any implementing measures for them.

Furthermore, even the requirement that the acts be of direct concern to the applicant’s individual situation is fulfilled in so far as the rights to private and family life, legal certainty and the free and peaceful enjoyment of his right to property, which are dependent on his freedom of movement, are denied him by the Trade Agreement, which has made no provision for the limited circle of persons who are in the same situation.

Accordingly, the omissions in the Trade Agreement as regards the freedom of movement of British nationals who have retained close personal, family and property ties in the European Union are of sufficient individual concern to the applicant.

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2021/689 of 29 April 2021 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, and of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (OJ 2021 L 149, p. 2).

Action brought on 16 May 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-328/22)

(2022/C 257/37)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rous Demiri, E. Sanfrutos Cano)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to ensure establishment of appropriate collecting systems for urban waste water — under Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC, (1) for the agglomerations of Kočevje, Trbovlje, Loka and Ljubljana, — under Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC, for the agglomerations of Kočevje, Trbovlje and Loka, and — under Article 15 of, and sections B and D of Annex I to, Council Directive 91/271/EEC, for the agglomerations of Ljubljana and Ptuj, declare that the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its relevant obligations under Articles 4, 5 and 15 of, and sections B and D of Annex I to, Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment;

2.	order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present case concerns the implementation in Slovenia of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment. The case concerns a long and comprehensive procedure seeking to establish failure to fulfil obligations provided for in EU law, which has been ongoing since 2014 and during the course of which the Commission established various infringements.

The infringement concerns the non-compliance with the directive of the waste water of certain agglomerations and the inadequate monitoring of discharge from the urban waste-water treatment plants. The number of agglomerations which failed to comply varied during the course of the procedure, given that certain infringements were remedied during the period in question, but others remain and constitute the basis of the present action.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Larko v Commission

(Case T-423/14 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Aid implemented by Greece - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Guarantee premium - Undertaking in difficulty - Awareness of the Greek authorities - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 257/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Drillerakis, E. Rantos and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision 2014/539/EU of 27 March 2014 on State aid SA.34572 (20113/C) (ex 13/NN) implemented by Greece for Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company S.A. (OJ 2014 L 254, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in Cases T-423/14 and T-423/14 RENV, and in Case C-244/18 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — OC v Commission

(Case T-384/20) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - OLAF investigation - Press release - Processing of personal data - Presumption of innocence - Confidentiality of OLAF investigations - Right to sound administration - Proportionality - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2022/C 257/39)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: OC (represented by: P. Yatagantzidis and V. Cheirdaris, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the publication of OLAF press release No 13/2020 of 5 May 2020, in that it unlawfully processed her personal data and conveyed false information about her.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders OC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Advanced Superabrasives v EUIPO — Adi (ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES)

(Case T-4/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES - Earlier EU figurative and word marks ADI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Remittal of the case to the Opposition Division - Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(3)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2022/C 257/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Advanced Superabrasives, Inc. (Mars Hill, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: D. Piróg and A. Rytel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Adi Srl (Thiene, Italy) (represented by B. Saguatti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2020 (Case R 2713/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Adi and Advanced Superabrasives.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Advanced Superabrasives, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of two crossed stripes placed on the side of a shoe)

(Case T-117/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 257/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Munich, SL (La Torre de Claramunt, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Guix Vilanova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2020 (Case R 2882/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Deichmann and Munich.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Munich, SL.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS)

(Case T-237/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FIS - Earlier EU word mark IFIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 257/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (Jacksonville, Florida, United States) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Banca IFIS SpA (Mestre, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2021 (Case R 1460/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Banca IFIS and Fidelity National Information Services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Bodegas Beronia v EUIPO — Bodegas Carlos Serres (ALEGRA DE BERONIA)

(Case T-298/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ALEGRA DE BERONIA - Earlier national word mark ALEGRO - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 257/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Beronia (Ollauri, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bodegas Carlos Serres, SL (Haro, Spain) (represented by: F. Pérez Álvarez and J. Pérez Itarte, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2021 (Case R 2013/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Carlos Serres and Bodegas Beronia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2021 (Case R 2013/2020-1);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as pay half of the costs of Bodegas Beronia, SA, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

3.	Orders Bodegas Carlos Serres, SL, to bear its own costs as well as pay half the costs of Bodegas Beronia, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Usmanov v Council

(Case T-237/22)

(2022/C 257/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alisher Usmanov (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally:

—	annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022, (1) in so far as it concerns Mr Usmanov;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022, (2) in so far as it concerns Mr Usmanov;

—	annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; (3)

—	annul Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4) in the alternative,

—	annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022, in so far as it concerns Mr Usmanov;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022, in so far as it concerns Mr Usmanov;

—	annul Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022;

—	annul Article 1(1)(f) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; and in any event,

—	order the Council of the European Union to pay Mr Usmanov the sum of EUR 20,000 under Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court for the costs he has incurred in defending his interests.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 58, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Narzieva v Council

(Case T-238/22)

(2022/C 257/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Saodat Narzieva (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

principally, annul: — Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, (1) in so far as it concerns Ms Narzieva; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, (2) in so far as it concerns Ms Narzieva; — Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022, (3) — Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4)

—

in the alternative, annul: — Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns Ms Narzieva; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns Ms Narzieva; — Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; — Article 1(1)(f) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022;

—	in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay Ms Narzieva the sum of EUR 20,000 under Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court for the costs she has incurred in defending her interests.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1).

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-256/22)

(2022/C 257/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/376 of 3 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/375 of 3 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (2), insofar as they concern the applicant; and

—	order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs for this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Council did not and could not verify that the decision(s) of the Ukrainian Authorities on which it relied when listing the applicant were adopted in accordance with his fundamental EU rights of defence and to effective judicial protection.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted the material supplied by the Ukrainian Authorities without any proper examination and/or without taking account of the inaccuracies identified by the applicant. The Council should have undertaken additional checks and requested further evidence from the Ukrainian Authorities in light of the observations the applicant submitted and the exculpatory evidence he produced, but the Council’s limited enquiries fell short of what was required. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2022 Sanctions.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU have been breached, in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; (ii) Ukrainian domestic measures would plainly be adequate and sufficient; and (iii) restrictive measures have now been in place for eight years and have, once again, been imposed on the basis of pre-trial investigations which are, in obvious reality, deceased and/or at the very least in total stagnation and, in respect of one of them, on which the Council has not sought to rely in either of the two preceding years.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 70, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 70, p. 4.

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-257/22)

(2022/C 257/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/376 of 3 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/375 of 3 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (2), insofar as they concern the applicant; and

—	order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs for this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Council did not and could not verify that the decision(s) of the Ukrainian Authorities on which it relied when listing the applicant were adopted in accordance with his fundamental EU rights of defence and to effective judicial protection.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted the material supplied by the Ukrainian Authorities without any proper examination and/or without taking account of the inaccuracies identified by the applicant. The Council should have undertaken additional checks and requested further evidence from the Ukrainian Authorities in light of the observations the applicant submitted and the exculpatory evidence he produced, but the Council’s limited enquiries fell short of what was required. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2022 Sanctions.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU have been breached, in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; (ii) Ukrainian domestic measures would plainly be adequate and sufficient; and (iii) restrictive measures have now been in place for eight years and have been imposed on the basis of a pre-trial investigation which is, in obvious, reality deceased and/or at the very least in total stagnation and on which the Council has not sought to rely in either of the two preceding years.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 70, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 70, p. 4.

Action brought on 12 May 2022 — BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding v Council

(Case T-258/22)

(2022/C 257/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AAT Byelorussian Steel Works — management company of ‘Byelorussian Metallurgical Company’ holding (BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding) (Zhlobin, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/356 of 2 March 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/355 of 2 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2), in their entirety insofar as they affect the applicant; and

—	order the Council to pay the costs occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures contravene the duty to give reasons, infringe the right to a fair hearing and infringe the right to effective judicial protection.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the principle of equal treatment and misuse of powers.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 103.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 1.

Action brought on 12 May 2022 — Mostovdrev v Council

(Case T-259/22)

(2022/C 257/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AAT Mostovdrev (Mosty, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/356 of 2 March 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/355 of 2 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2), in their entirety insofar as they affect the applicant; and

—	orader the Council to pay the costs occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures contravene the duty to give reasons, infringe the right to a fair hearing and infringe the right to effective judicial protection.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the principle of equal treatment and misuse of powers.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 103.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 1.

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — mBank v EUIPO — European Merchant Bank (EMBANK European Merchant Bank)

(Case T-261/22)

(2022/C 257/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: mBank S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and M. Stępkowski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Merchant Bank UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania)

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 figurative mark EMBANK European Merchant Bank — European Union trade mark No 18 048 966

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2022 in Case R 1845/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	alter the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

—	order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — CCCME and Others v Commission

(Case T-263/22)

(2022/C 257/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (Beijing, China) and 8 others (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 of 16 February 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), in so far as it relates to the CCCME, the individual companies, and the members concerned; and

—	order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration in its determination of the normal value.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to ensure a fair comparison in its dumping determination in violation of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 18 of the basic Regulation and Article 6.8 and Annex II of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in its use of facts available for labour.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation in its determination of the dumping margin for the non-sampled cooperating exporting producers.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to make an objective examination of injury and causation based on positive evidence in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), and 3(6), in conjunction with Article 4(1), of the basic Regulation.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s undercutting analysis is in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), and 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to make a fair comparison in its assessment of the price effects in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(6), and 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

8.	Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to make an objective examination based on positive evidence with respect to the injury indicators, in violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

9.	Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 6(7), Articles 19(1), (2), and (3) and Articles 20(2) and 20(4) of the basic Regulation, and the rights of defence.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 36, p. 1.

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — PSCC 2012 v EUIPO — Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (LA BOTTEGA W)

(Case T-265/22)

(2022/C 257/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: PSCC 2012 Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Alessandrini and E. Montelione, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC (Bethesda, Maryland, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark LA BOTTEGA W — EU trade mark No 11 592 581

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2022 in Case R 621/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul and vary the contested decision and reject the application for cancellation of the mark LA BOTTEGA W;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Articles 60 and 8 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

—	Infringement of Article 42 of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal.

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

Action brought on 16 May 2022 — Consulta v EUIPO — Karlinger (ACASA)

(Case T-267/22)

(2022/C 257/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Consulta GmbH (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mario Karlinger (Sölden, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ACASA — EU trade mark No 7 587 165

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2022 in Case R 487/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 72(2) read in conjunction with Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of the principles developed in the case-law of the General Court of the European Union on the interpretation of those provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Pumpyansky v Council

(Case T-270/22)

(2022/C 257/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyansky (Ekaterinburg, Russia) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth, A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (‘Contested Acts’), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and

—	order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life, home and communications as well as property. — In listing the applicant by way of the Contested Acts, the Council acted in breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts. — The Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed. — The Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations. — The evidence provided is insufficient to support the listing of the applicant by way of the Contested Acts.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 2022 ,L 80, p. 1.

Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Melnichenko v Council

(Case T-271/22)

(2022/C 257/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andrey Melnichenko (St. Moritz, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth, A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (‘Contested Acts’), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and

—	order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life, home and communications as well as property. — In listing the applicant by way of the Contested Acts, the Council acted in breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts. — The Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed. — The Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations. — The evidence provided is insufficient to support the listing of the applicant by way of the Contested Acts.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 1.

Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Pumpyanskaya v Council

(Case T-272/22)

(2022/C 257/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya (Ekaterinburg, Russia) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (‘Contested Acts’), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and

—	order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts. — The Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed. — The Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations. — The evidence provided is insufficient to establish a qualified link between the applicant and the applicant’s husband, with the element of ‘association’ under the Contested Acts requiring a nexus going beyond a mere family relationship.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life, home and communications, as well as property. — In listing the applicant by way of the Contested Acts, the Council acted in breach of the principle of proportionality and based its decision upon law that does not conform to the requirement of foreseeability under Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. — The arbitrary measure imposed against the applicant amounts to unequal, discriminatory treatment of the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 1.

Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Groz-Beckert v EUIPO (Position mark consisting of the colours white, medium red and dark green on cuboid packaging)

(Case T-276/22)

(2022/C 257/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groz-Beckert KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen and U. Kaufmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the position mark consisting of the colours white, medium red and dark green on cuboid packaging — Application No 18 243 039

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2022 in Case R 1447/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of the first sentence of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Groz-Beckert v EUIPO (Position mark consisting of the colours red and white on cuboid packaging)

(Case T-277/22)

(2022/C 257/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groz-Beckert KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen and U. Kaufmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the position mark consisting of the colours red and white on cuboid packaging — Application No 18 243 038

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2022 in Case R 1444/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of the first sentence of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 18 May 2022 — Mazepin v Council

(Case T-282/22)

(2022/C 257/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Moretto and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1), and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022, implementing Regulation (EU) 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2); and

—	order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, failure to discharge the burden of proof, breach of the listing criteria set forth in Article 1(1)(a) and (e) and 2(1)(a) and (g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 and in Article 3(1)(a), and (g) of the Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014, both concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and the breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct business (Article 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental principle of non-discrimination.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 1.

Action brought on 19 May 2022 — Moshkovich v Council

(Case T-283/22)

(2022/C 257/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Vadim Nikolaevich Moshkovich (Tambov, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme, L. Burguin, M. Moretto, V. Villante and M. Pirovano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1), and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022, implementing Regulation (EU) 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2); and

—	order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as a breach of the obligation to state reasons and of Article 296 TFEU.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the listing criteria set forth in Article 1 (1) and 2(1) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and of Article 3 (1) of the Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct business (Article 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental principle of non-discrimination.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 1.

Action brought on 18 May 2022 — Pumpyanskiy v Council

(Case T-291/22)

(2022/C 257/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Dmitrievich Pumpyanskiy (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022, (1) in so far as it includes the applicant at position No 719 of the Annex to that decision;

—	annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022, (2) in so far as it includes the applicant at position No 719 of Annex I to that regulation;

—	order the Council to make a provisional payment of EUR 100 000 as compensation for the non-material harm sustained by the applicant;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the administration’s duty to state reasons.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment with respect to the reasons relied on by the Council.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of fundamental rights with regard to the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant and the unjustified interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights as laid down by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle of legal certainty as regards the application of the criterion regarding persons ‘associated’ with persons included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 31).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 1).

Action brought on 19 May 2022 — PB v SRB

(Case T-293/22)

(2022/C 257/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PB (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the President of the SRB of 16 July 2021 not to reclassify the applicant at the end of the 2021 reclassification exercise;

—	in so far as necessary, annul the SRB’s decision of 14 February 2022 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 15 October 2021 against the decision not to reclassify him;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural rules applicable to the implementation of the reclassification exercise as provided for by Article 5 of the general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (the ‘GIP’).

2.	Second plea in law, alleging an erroneous analysis of Article 4 of the GIP and an erroneous assessment of the levels of responsibility with respect to a function and not with respect to a grade.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of procedure of the Joint Reclassification Committee and of the obligation to draw up a report relating to each reclassification exercise.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to documents and infringement of the principles of openness, predictability and legal certainty, and the existence of — at least objective — bias due to the lack of information at multiple stages of the procedure.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and errors in the list of factors assessed.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Annex II to the GIP and the target average set.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s file, his merits and his seniority compared with colleagues in the same directorate.

Action brought on 20 May 2022 — Crush Series Publishing v EUIPO — Mediaproduccion (The Crush Series)

(Case T-295/22)

(2022/C 257/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Crush Series Publishing s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: D.-M. Belciu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mediaproduccion SLU (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark The Crush Series — Application for registration No 18 119 385

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2022 in Case R 1303/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	reject the opposition and allow the European Union trade mark application ‘The Crush Series’, No 18 119 385 to proceed to registration;

—	order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

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

Action brought on 20 May 2022 — BB Services v EUIPO — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure with a protrusion on the head)

(Case T-297/22)

(2022/C 257/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BB Services GmbH (Flörsheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU three-dimensional mark (Shape of a toy figure with a protrusion on the head) — EU trade mark No 50 450

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2022 in Case R 1355/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No 50 450 invalid;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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

Action brought on 20 May 2022 — BB Services v EUIPO — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)

(Case T-298/22)

(2022/C 257/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BB Services GmbH (Flörsheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU three-dimensional mark (Shape of a toy figure) — EU trade mark No 50 518

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2022 in Case R 1354/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No 50 518 invalid;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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

Action brought on 23 May 2022 — Aven v Council

(Case T-301/22)

(2022/C 257/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petr Aven (Virginia Water, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Council Decision 2022/337 (1) of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 (2) of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in assessment. The applicant claims, first, that none of the evidence put forward by the Council meets the requirements of the European case-law on the standard and quality of proof and, second, that none of the assertions in the Council’s statement of reasons is well-established and none therefore fits into criteria (a) to (d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, in the version then in force, to which explicit reference was made by the Council in its statement of reasons.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging illegality of that criterion on account of a twofold infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims, first, that the criterion relied on by the Council is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective pursued and, second, that it was possible to employ less-restrictive measures.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging the lack of a legal basis, on the ground that no sufficient link has been established between the category of individuals targeted by that criterion and the Russian Federation.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessment, on the ground that the Council does not show that the applicant is a prominent or leading businessman or that he is involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022, L 58, p. 1).

Action brought on 24 May 2022 — Fridman v Council

(Case T-304/22)

(2022/C 257/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mikhail Fridman (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Council Decision 2022/337 (1) of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 (2) of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in assessment. The applicant claims, first, that none of the evidence put forward by the Council meets the requirements of the European case-law on the standard and quality of proof and, second, that none of the assertions in the Council’s statement of reasons is well-established and none therefore fits into criteria (a) to (d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, in the version then in force, to which explicit reference was made by the Council in its statement of reasons.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging illegality of that criterion on account of a twofold infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims, first, that the criterion relied on by the Council is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective pursued and, second, that it was possible to employ less-restrictive measures.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging the lack of a legal basis, on the ground that no sufficient link has been established between the category of individuals targeted by that criterion and the Russian Federation.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessment, on the ground that the Council does not show that the applicant is a prominent or leading businessman or that he is involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022, L 58, p. 1).