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

(2022/C 318/01)

Last publication

OJ C 311, 16.8.2022

Past publications

OJ C 303, 8.8.2022

OJ C 294, 1.8.2022

OJ C 284, 25.7.2022

OJ C 276, 18.7.2022

OJ C 266, 11.7.2022

OJ C 257, 4.7.2022

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — CC v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

(Case C-576/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 44(2) - Scope - Old-age pension - Calculation - Taking into account of child-raising periods completed in other Member States - Article 21 TFEU - Free movement of citizens)

(2022/C 318/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CC

Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, where, for the purpose of granting an old-age pension, the person concerned does not fulfil the condition of pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person imposed by that provision in order to have taken into account, by the Member State responsible for payment of that pension, child-raising periods completed by that person in other Member States, that Member State is required to take account of those periods pursuant to Article 21 TFEU, provided that that person worked and paid contributions exclusively in that Member State, both before and after transferring that person’s place of residence to another Member State where the person carried out those child-raising periods.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 26 de Barcelona — Spain) — KM v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-625/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4(1) - Indirect discrimination on ground of sex - National legislation providing that two or more total occupational invalidity pensions acquired under the same statutory social security scheme are incompatible - Compatibility of such pensions where they come under different statutory social security schemes - Finding of indirect discrimination on the basis of statistical data - Determination of the affected groups to be compared - Justification)

(2022/C 318/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 26 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KM

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents workers affiliated to social security from receiving a combination of two total occupational invalidity pensions where those pensions come under the same social security scheme, while permitting such a combination where those pensions come under different social security schemes, where that legislation places female workers at a particular disadvantage as compared with male workers, in particular in so far as that legislation permits a significantly higher proportion of male workers, determined on the basis of all male workers subject to that legislation, as compared with the corresponding proportion of female workers, to benefit from that combination and where that legislation is not justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on ground of sex.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — HW, ZF, MZ v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

(Case C-652/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Article 11(1)(b) - Action brought by the policyholder, the insured person or a beneficiary - Possibility of bringing proceedings against the insurer before a court of the place where the person bringing the claim is domiciled - Determination of the international and territorial jurisdiction of a court of a Member State - Article 13(2) - Direct action brought by the injured party against the insurer - Insurer domiciled in a Member State with an establishment in another Member State sued in the court of the place where that establishment is situated)

(2022/C 318/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HW, ZF, MZ

Defendant: Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, where that provision is applicable, it determines both the international jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a Member State within whose jurisdiction the person bringing the claim is domiciled.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — B. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w.

(Case C-696/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 41 - Intra-Community acquisition of goods - Place - Chain of successive transactions - Incorrect classification of some of the transactions - Principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality)

(2022/C 318/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: B.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 41 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which an intra-Community acquisition of goods is regarded as having been made in the territory of that Member State, where that acquisition, which constitutes the first stage of a chain of successive transactions, was wrongly classified as a domestic transaction by the taxable persons involved, which indicated for that purpose their value added tax (VAT) identification number allocated by that Member State, and VAT was applied to the subsequent transaction, which was wrongly classified as an intra-Community transaction, as an intra-Community acquisition of goods by the persons acquiring the goods in the Member State in which the transport of the goods ended. That provision, read in the light of the principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality, nevertheless precludes such legislation of a Member State where the intra-Community acquisition of goods which is regarded as being realised within the territory of that Member State results from an intra-Community supply of goods which has not been treated as an exempt transaction in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg — Austria) — LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG v CB, DF, GH

(Case C-7/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of documents - Regulation (EC) 1393/2007 - Article 8(1) - One-week period within which the right to refuse to accept a document is to be exercised - Enforcement order made in one Member State and served in another Member State in the language of the first Member State only - Legislation of that first Member State laying down an eight-day period to lodge an objection to that order - Period for lodging an objection starting to run at the same time as the period laid down for the purpose of exercising the right to refuse to accept the document - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy)

(2022/C 318/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Bleiburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG

Defendants: CB, DF, GH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79), read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of the Member State of the authority which issued a document to be served, pursuant to which the starting point of the one-week period referred to in Article 8(1) of that regulation, within which the addressee of such a document may refuse to accept it on one of the grounds set out in that provision, is the same as the starting point for the period within which a remedy is to be sought against that document in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc — Romania) — Pricoforest SRL v Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

(Case C-13/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Social legislation - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Exceptions - Article 13(1)(b) - Notion of ‘a radius of up to 100 kilometres (km) from the base of the undertaking’ - Vehicles effecting carriage within and also outside of that radius)

(2022/C 318/07)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pricoforest SRL

Defendant: Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

Operative part of the judgment

1.

The notion of a ‘radius of up to 100 [kilometres (km)] from the base of the undertaking’, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020, must be understood as referring to a straight line not exceeding 100 km, drawn on the map from that base and joining the base to any point in a circular geographical area surrounding that same base.

2.

Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 561/2006, as amended by Regulation 2020/1054, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has granted, on the basis of that provision, exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of that regulation, which are applicable to the carriage of goods by vehicles covered by that provision, and where those vehicles carry those goods not only within a radius of up to 100 km from the base of the undertaking concerned, but also outside of that radius, those exceptions are applicable only to the carriage of goods by those vehicles which does not occur outside of that radius.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone — Italy) — PH v Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia, Direzione centrale risorse agroalimentari, forestali e ittiche — Servizio foreste e corpo forestale della Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Case C-24/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Genetically modified foodstuffs and animal feed - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 26a - Potential for Member States to take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in other products - Conditions under which appropriate - Principle of proportionality - Guidelines for the development of national coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in conventional and organic crops - Measure adopted by an infra-State entity prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified maize in its territory)

(2022/C 318/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PH

Defendants: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia, Direzione centrale risorse agroalimentari, forestali e ittiche — Servizio foreste e corpo forestale della Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, as amended by Regulation (EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003, read in the light of that regulation and the Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national measure prohibiting, for the purpose of avoiding the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in other products, the cultivation in the territory of a region of the Member State concerned of genetically modified organisms authorised under Regulation 1829/2003, on condition that that measure enables the objective of ensuring that producers and consumers have a choice between the products derived from genetically modified crops and products derived from organic and conventional crops to be achieved and that, with regard to the particular circumstances of crops in that territory, that measure is appropriate to achieving that objective and proportionate to it;

2.

Where a national measure prohibits, in the territory of a region of the Member State concerned, the cultivation of genetically modified organisms authorised under Regulation No 1829/2003, in accordance with Article 26a of Directive 2001/18 as amended by Regulation No 1829/2003, read in the light of that regulation and the Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops, it is not necessary to determine further, separately, whether that measure complies with Articles 34 to 36 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus — Estonia) — Aktsiaselts M.V.WOOL v Põllumajandus- ja Toiduamet

(Case C-51/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food law - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs - Article 3(1) - Obligations of food business operators - Annex I - Point 1.2 of Chapter 1 - Limit values for the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in fish products before and after being placed on the market - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 14(8) - Official controls of the product at the stage at which it is placed on the market - Scope)

(2022/C 318/09)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aktsiaselts M.V.WOOL

Defendant: Põllumajandus- ja Toiduamet

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 3(1) and point 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/229 of 7 February 2019, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the manufacturer is unable to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the competent authority, that, throughout their shelf-life, foodstuffs will not exceed the limit of 100 colony-forming units/grams (g), as regards the presence of Listeria monocytogenes, the limit requiring the absence of detection of Listeria monocytogenes in 25 g of the food product concerned laid down in that point 1.2 of that Annex I, does not apply to foodstuffs which have been placed on the market throughout their shelf-life.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės — Lithuania) — UAB ‘ARVI’ ir ko v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-56/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 137 - Optional tax liability scheme - Conditions - National legislation which makes the right of a taxable person to opt to charge VAT on the sale of immovable property conditional on the transfer of that property to a taxable person already registered for VAT purposes - Obligation to adjust VAT deductions where that condition is not satisfied - Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality)

(2022/C 318/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘ARVI’ ir ko

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Articles 135 and 137 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes the right of a taxable person to opt to charge value added tax (VAT) on the sale of immovable property conditional on the transfer of that property to a taxable person who, at the time of conclusion of the transaction, is already registered for VAT purposes;

2.

The provisions of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation and practice under which the seller of immovable property is required to adjust the deduction of input VAT on that property following the refusal to recognise the seller’s right of option for taxation in respect of that sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, the purchaser did not satisfy the conditions laid down in order for the seller to exercise that right. Although the actual use of the immovable property in question by the purchaser in connection with activities subject to VAT is irrelevant in that regard, the competent authorities are nevertheless required to ascertain whether there has been fraud or abuse on the part of the taxable person who intended to exercise the right of option for taxation in respect of the transaction in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 — Laure Camerin v European Commission

(Case C-63/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Former official - Sums deducted from retirement pension - Enforcement of a decision of a national court - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 318/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Laure Camerin (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Laure Camerin to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 — Danske Slagtermestre v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-99/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Contributions scheme for the collection of waste water - Complaint - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Locus standi - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern)

(2022/C 318/12)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: Danske Slagtermestre (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Nymann-Lindegren, V. Pasternak Jørgensen, M. Søndahl Wolff and L. Teilgård, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 1 December 2020, Danske Slagtermestre v Commission (T-486/18, not published, EU:T:2020:576);

2.	Declares the appeal at first instance admissible;

3.	Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the merits;

4.	Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-105/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 47 - Right to freedom of movement and residence - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Principles of equality and mutual trust - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Letter of Rights on arrest - Right of a person to be informed of the accusation against him or her in relation to a national arrest warrant - Right of access to the materials of the case - Conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant in respect of an accused person who is in the executing Member State - Primacy of EU law)

(2022/C 318/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main criminal proceedings

IR

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right to freedom of movement and residence and the principles of equality and mutual trust must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority issuing a European arrest warrant, adopted under Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is under no obligation to forward to the person who is the subject of that arrest warrant the national decision on the arrest of that person and information on the possibilities of challenging that decision, while that person is in the Member State executing the European arrest warrant and has not been surrendered to the competent authorities of the Member State issuing that arrest warrant.

2.

The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the issuing judicial authority to give, as far as is possible, an interpretation of its national law that is in conformity with EU law, which enables it to ensure an outcome that is compatible with the aim pursued by Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, which precludes national law from requiring that authority to forward to the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant, before his or her surrender to the judicial authorities of the issuing Member State, the national decision on his or her arrest and information on the possibilities of challenging that decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice v VB, Direcţia Generalā Regionalā a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

(Case C-146/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Implementing Decisions 2010/583/EU and 2013/676/EU authorising Romania to derogate from Article 193 of that directive - Reverse charge mechanism - Supplies of wood products - National legislation imposing a condition of registration for VAT purposes for the application of that mechanism - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2022/C 318/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice

Defendants: VB, Direcţia Generalā Regionalā a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality do not preclude national legislation under which the reverse charge mechanism is not applicable to a taxable person who had neither applied for nor obtained on his or her own initiative, before carrying out the taxable transactions, his or her registration for the purposes of VAT.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 — Fakro sp. z o.o. v European Commission, Republic of Poland

(Case C-149/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Rejection of a complaint by the European Commission - Lack of Union interest)

(2022/C 318/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Fakro sp. z o.o. (represented by: Z. Kiedacz and A. Radkowiak-Macuda, radcowie prawni)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, I.V. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Fakro sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Profi Credit Bulgaria v T.I.T.

(Case C-170/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer credit - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 6(1) - Ex officio review - Refusal to issue an order for payment in the event of a claim based on an unfair term - Consequences relating to the unfairness of a contractual term - Right to restitution - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Offsetting ex officio)

(2022/C 318/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Profi Credit Bulgaria

Defendant: T.I.T.

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the national court, on receiving an application for an order for payment and where the debtor-consumer concerned does not take part in the proceedings until the order for payment is issued, is obliged to disapply ex officio an unfair term in the consumer credit agreement concluded between that consumer and the seller or supplier concerned, on which part of the claim brought is based. In that case, the court has the option of rejecting the application in part, provided that the agreement can continue to exist without any further amendment, revision or supplementation, which it is for the court to verify.

2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, while that provision obliges the national court, on receiving an application for an order for payment, to draw all the consequences which, under national law, flow from a finding that a term in an agreement between a consumer and a seller or supplier is unfair, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by it, that does not, in principle, oblige the court to offset ex officio the payment made on the basis of that term against the balance due under that agreement, subject, however, to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

3.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, where, under that provision, read in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, the national court, on receiving an application for an order for payment would be obliged to offset ex officio the payment made on the basis of an unfair term in a consumer credit agreement against the balance due under that agreement, that court is obliged to disregard the case-law of a higher court to the contrary.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Clemente v Comunidad de Castilla y León (Dirección General de la Función Pública)

(Case C-192/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4(1) - Principle of non-discrimination - Failure to take into account the services provided by an interim civil servant who has become a career civil servant for the purpose of consolidating his or her personal grade - Assimilation of those services to those provided by a career civil servant - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ - Taking into account the period of service for the purpose of acquiring the status of career civil servant - Structure of the vertical progression of career civil servants under national legislation)

(2022/C 318/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mr Clemente

Defendant: Comunidad de Castilla y León (Dirección General de la Función Pública)

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, precludes national legislation under which, for the purposes of consolidating a personal grade, account is not taken of services which a career civil servant provided as an interim civil servant before he or she acquired the status of career civil servant.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X

(Case C-194/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 184 and 185 - Adjustment of deductions - Taxable person who did not exercise their right of deduction before the expiry of a limitation period - No possibility of making that deduction in the context of adjustment)

(2022/C 318/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: X

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184 and 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010

must be interpreted as not precluding a taxable person who failed to exercise, before the expiry of the limitation period laid down by national law, the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) relating to the acquisition of goods or services, from being denied the possibility of subsequently making that deduction, by way of an adjustment, at the time when those goods or services are first used for the purposes of taxed transactions, even where no abuse of rights, fraud or loss of tax revenue has been established.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (C-213/21 and C-214/21) v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani (C-213/21), Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

(Joined Cases C-213/21 and C-214/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Scope - Article 10(h) - Specific exclusions for service contracts - Civil defence, civil protection and danger prevention services - Non-profit organisations or associations - Ambulance service classified as an emergency service - Voluntary organisations - Social cooperatives)

(2022/C 318/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (C-213/21 and C-214/21)

Defendants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani (C-213/21), Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

Interveners: Regione Puglia (C-213/21), Confederazione Nazionale delle Misericordie d’Italia (C-213/21), Associazione Nazionale Pubbliche Assistenze (Organizzazione nazionale di volontariato) — ANPAS ODV (C-213/21 and C-214/21), Croce Rossa Italiana — Comitato Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(h) of 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 not precluding national legislation which provides that emergency ambulance transport services may be awarded, by contract, on a preferential basis, only to voluntary organisations, and not to social cooperatives which can offer rebates associated with their activities to their members.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH v L.B. (C-257/21), R.G. (C-258/21),

(Joined Cases C-257/21 and C-258/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 153 TFEU - Protection of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Night work - Collective agreement which provides for a lower supplementary allowance for regular night work than that established for irregular night work - Equal treatment - Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of Union law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2022/C 318/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH

Defendants: L.B. (C-257/21), R.G. (C-258/21)

Operative part of the judgment

A provision of a collective agreement which provides for a higher supplementary allowance for irregular night work than that established for regular night work is not implementing 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 for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis AG, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-261/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Obligation on Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law - Article 267 TFEU - Obligation on the referring court to give full effect to the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court of Justice - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Access to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law - Judgment of a national court of last instance after a preliminary ruling by the Court - Alleged non-conformity of that judgment with the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court - National legislation preventing the bringing of an action for revision of that judgment)

(2022/C 318/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis AG, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA

Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Interveners: Società Oftalmologica Italiana (SOI) — Associazione Medici Oculisti Italiani (AMOI), Regione Emilia-Romagna, Regione Lombardia, Altroconsumo, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA, Novartis AG, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale (Aiudapds), Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (Codacons), Ministero della Salute — Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) and Article 19(1) TEU, and Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of procedural law of a Member State which, while observing the principle of equivalence, have the effect that, where the supreme court of the administrative system of that Member State gives a decision settling a dispute in which it had made a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the parties to that dispute may not seek a revision of that decision of the national court based on the contention that the latter disregarded the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court of Justice in response to that request.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia v Koninklijke Philips NV

(Case C-264/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘producer’ - Any person who, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or having authorised those particulars to be put on the product, presents himself as its producer)

(2022/C 318/22)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

Respondent: Koninklijke Philips NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘producer’, referred to in that provision, does not require that the person who has put his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or who has authorised those particulars to be put on the product, also present himself as the producer of that product in some other way.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — KU, OP, GC v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

(Case C-308/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 5(3) - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Extraordinary circumstances - Generalised failure of the aircraft refuelling system at the airport)

(2022/C 318/23)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KU, OP, GC

Defendant: SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that where the airport of origin of the flights or aircraft concerned is responsible for the aircraft refuelling system, a generalised breakdown in the supply of fuel can be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Ville de Mons, Zone de secours Hainaut-Centre v RM

(Case C-377/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of pro rata temporis - Taking into account, for the purpose of calculating the remuneration of a full-time professional firefighter, the length of service for remuneration purposes which he has acquired as a volunteer firefighter, in accordance with the principle of pro rata temporis)

(2022/C 318/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ville de Mons. Zone de secours Hainaut-Centre

Defendant: RM

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement implemented by Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of calculating the remuneration of professional firefighters employed on a full-time basis, accredits, in respect of the length of service for remuneration purposes, work performed previously on a part-time basis as a volunteer firefighter in line with the principle of pro rata temporis, that is to say, on the basis of the work actually performed.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — M.A.

(Case C-72/22 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Asylum and immigration policy - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 4 - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Articles 6 and 7 - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2013/33/EU - Article 8 - Detention of the applicant - Ground for detention - Protection of national security or public order - Detention of the applicant for having entered the territory of the European Union unlawfully)

(2022/C 318/25)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.A.

Intervener: Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Articles 6 and 7(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which, in the event of a declaration of a state of war or a state of emergency or a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, illegally staying third-country nationals are de facto denied the opportunity of having access, in the territory of that Member State, to the procedure for examining an application for international protection.

2.

Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of persons seeking international protection must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, in the event of a declaration of a state of war or a state of emergency or a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, an applicant for asylum may be detained on the sole ground that his or her stay in the territory of that Member State is unlawful.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 25.4.2022.

Order of the President of the Court of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Portugal) — DS, CF, DT, CL v Orbest, SA

(Case C-704/21) (1)

(Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Extraordinary circumstances - Collision of a catering vehicle with an aircraft parked at the airport)

(2022/C 318/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DS, CF, DT, CL

Defendant: Orbest, SA

Operative part of the order

Case C-704/21 is removed from the Register of the Court.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 23.11.2021.

Appeal brought on 10 March 2022 by Laboratorios Ern, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 January 2022 in Case T-160/21, Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)

(Case C-187/22 P)

(2022/C 318/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (represented by: T. González Martínez and R. Guerras Mazón, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Ingrid Malpricht

By order of 11 July 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Laboratorios Ern, SA should bear its own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 17 March 2022 — Lineas — Concessões de Transportes SGPS, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-207/22)

(2022/C 318/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lineas — Concessões de Transportes SGPS, S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

May a holding company which has as its sole object the management of shareholdings in other companies, as an indirect means of pursuing economic activities, and which, in that context, acquires and holds on a long-term basis such shareholdings, which, in general, are at least 10 % of the share capital of the companies in which it has a shareholding, where the activity of those companies comes within the category of transport infrastructure management, including the design, construction and management of roads and/or motorways, be regarded as a ‘financial institution’ within the meaning of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 575/2013? (2)

---

(1)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 20 April 2022 — Global Roads Investimentos SGPS, Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-267/22)

(2022/C 318/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Global Roads Investimentos SGPS, Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Is a holding company established in Portugal and governed by the provisions of Decree-law No 495/88 of 30 December 1988, which has as its sole object the management of shareholdings in other companies, as an indirect means of pursuing economic activities, and which, in that context, acquires and holds on a long-term basis such shareholdings, which, in general, amount to at least 10 % of the share capital of the companies in which it has a shareholding, where those companies do not operate in the insurance or financial sectors, covered by the definition of ‘financial institution’ within the meaning of point 22 of Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) and point 26 of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013? (2)

---

(1)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2022 — VITOL SA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-268/22)

(2022/C 318/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VITOL SA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Is Implementing Regulation No 1194/2013, (1) as amended by Regulation 2017/1578, (2) contrary to the basic regulation No 1225/2009, (3) inter alia because:

—

it has not been demonstrated that the conditions were met for disregarding, in the context of calculating the normal value of the like product, the costs associated with the production and sale of that product, as reflected in the records of the Argentinian exporting producers examined, in accordance with the rule laid down in Article 2(5) of the basic regulation,

—

the effects of the imports were erroneously assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic regulation and it was thus not adequately demonstrated that dumped imports had caused injury within the meaning of the basic regulation, as referred to in Article 3(6) and (7) of that regulation,

—	and there was thus no question of dumping and no anti-dumping duty could be imposed as referred to in Article 1 of the basic regulation?

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1578 of 18 September 2017 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2017 L 239, p. 9).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 25 April 2022 — Kinderrechtencoalitie Vlaanderen and Liga voor Mensenrechten v Belgian State

(Case C-280/22)

(2022/C 318/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kinderrechtencoalitie Vlaanderen and Liga voor Mensenrechten

Defendant: Belgian State

Question referred

Are Article 3(5) and (6) and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement, read in conjunction with Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 7767 of 30 November 2018 laying down the technical specifications for the uniform format for residence permits for third country nationals and repealing Decision C(2002)3069, valid and compatible with Article 16 TFEU and — as regards Article 3(5) and (6) — with Article 21 TFEU, as well as with Articles 7, 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with:

—	Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 25, 32, 35 and 36 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (2) 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,

—

Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 27 and 28 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 (3) 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 by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA,

—

Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 28 and 42 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC,

in so far as Article 3(5) and (6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 requires two fingerprints of the holder of the card to be stored in interoperable digital formats on a storage medium included on the identity card,

and in so far as Article 3(5) and (6) and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1157, read in conjunction with Annex III to the aforementioned Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 7767 of 30 November 2018, require the fingerprint data on the identity cards and residence documents referred to in points (a) and (c) of Article 2 of that regulation to be stored in the form of a digital image of the fingerprints on an electronic microprocessor chip which uses RFID and can be read wirelessly/in contactless form?

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 188, p. 67.

(2)  OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89.

(4)  OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 25 April 2022 — G.K., B.O.D. GmbH, S.L.

(Case C-281/22)

(2022/C 318/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Accused and appellant: G.K., B.O.D. GmbH, S.L.

Other party to the proceedings: Austrian European Delegated Prosector

Questions referred

1.

Must EU law, in particular the first subparagraph of Article 31(3) and Article 32 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 concerning the implementation of enhanced cooperation with a view to the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of cross-border investigations in the event that a court must approve a measure to be carried out in the Member State of the supporting European Delegated Prosecutor, all material aspects, such as criminal liability, suspicion of a criminal offence, necessity and proportionality, must be examined?

2.	Should the examination take into account whether the admissibility of the measure has already been examined by a court in the Member State of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case on the basis of the law of that Member State?

3.	In the event that the first question is answered in the negative and/or the second question in the affirmative, to what extent must a judicial review take place in the Member State of the supporting European Delegated Prosecutor?

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 3 May 2022 — YQ, RJ v Getin Noble Bank S.A.

(Case C-287/22)

(2022/C 318/33)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: YQ, RJ

Defendant: Getin Noble Bank S.A.

Question referred

In the light of the principles of effectiveness and proportionality, do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) preclude an interpretation of national legislation or of national case-law according to which a national court may, in particular because of a consumer’s obligations to settle payments with a seller or supplier or the sound financial situation of the seller or supplier, dismiss a consumer’s application for an interim measure (securing of the action) to suspend, during the course of the proceedings, the performance of a contract which is likely to be declared invalid as a result of the removal of the unfair terms from it?

---

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 3 May 2022 — NOS-SGPS SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-290/22)

(2022/C 318/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NOS-SGPS SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Does a holding company domiciled in Portugal and governed by the provisions of Decree-Law No 495/88 of 30 December 1988, the sole object of which is to manage shareholdings in companies other than those operating in the insurance sector, fall within the concept of financial institution within the meaning of point (22) of Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) and point (26) of Article 4(1) of Regulation EU No 575/2013? (2)

---

(1)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 May 2022 — A.T.U. Auto-Teile-Unger GmbH & Co. KG and Carglass GmbH v FCA Italy SpA

(Case C-296/22)

(2022/C 318/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A.T.U. Auto-Teile-Unger GmbH & Co. KG, Carglass GmbH

Defendant: FCA Italy SpA

Question referred

Is Article 61(1) and (4) of Regulation 2018/858, (1) read in conjunction with point 2.9 of Annex X thereto, which obliges the vehicle manufacturer, for the purpose of vehicle OBD, diagnostics, repair and maintenance, to make the direct vehicle data stream available through the serial data port on the standardised data link connector, also taking into account the requirements imposed on the vehicle manufacturer to guarantee the general safety of the vehicle in Item 63 of Part 1 of Annex II to that regulation

—	read in conjunction with Regulation No 661/2009 (2) as regards vehicles type-approved prior to 6 July 2022, in particular Article 5(1) thereof, and

—	read in conjunction with Regulation 2019/2144, (3) applicable as of 6 July 2022, and in particular Article 4(4) and (5) thereof,

to be interpreted as meaning that the vehicle manufacturer must always ensure, including when implementing relevant safety measures, that the vehicle OBD, diagnostics, repair and maintenance, including the write operations necessary for these purposes, can be carried out by independent repairers using a universal and generic diagnostic tool, without any need to meet requirements, not expressly stipulated in the regulation, for the device to have an internet connection to a server designated by the manufacturer and/or for the user to have personally registered with the vehicle manufacturer beforehand?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC (OJ 2018 L 151, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (OJ 2009 L 200, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulations (EC) No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 631/2009, (EU) No 406/2010, (EU) No 672/2010, (EU) No 1003/2010, (EU) No 1005/2010, (EU) No 1008/2010, (EU) No 1009/2010, (EU) No 19/2011, (EU) No 109/2011, (EU) No 458/2011, (EU) No 65/2012, (EU) No 130/2012, (EU) No 347/2012, (EU) No 351/2012, (EU) No 1230/2012 and (EU) 2015/166 (OJ 2019 L 325, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2022 — PM v Senatsverwaltung für Justiz, Vielfalt und Antidiskriminierung

(Case C-304/22)

(2022/C 318/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PM

Defendant: Senatsverwaltung für Justiz, Vielfalt und Antidiskriminierung

Other party to the proceedings: CM

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 1(1)(a), Article 2, point 4, Article 21(1) and Article 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1) are referred for a preliminary ruling:

1.	Is a divorce on the basis of Articles 82, 87, 89 and 90 of the Código Civil (Spanish Civil Code) a divorce within the meaning of the Brussels IIa Regulation?

2.	If the first question is answered in the negative: Is a divorce on the basis of Articles 82, 87, 89 and 90 of the Spanish Civil Code to be treated in accordance with the rule contained in Article 46 of the Brussels IIa Regulation regarding authentic instruments and agreements?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1; ‘the Brussels IIa Regulation’.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 May 2022 — ZL, KU, KM v Provident Polska S.A.

(Case C-321/22)

(2022/C 318/37)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants and counter-defendants: ZL, KU, KM

Defendant and counter-applicant: Provident Polska S.A.

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as permitting a contractual term which grants a seller or supplier a fee or commission that is disproportionately high in relation to the service offered to be regarded as an unfair contractual term?

2.

Must Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law or a judicial interpretation of those provisions under which the consumer must have a legal interest in order for an action brought by the consumer against a seller or supplier for a declaration that a contract or part thereof that contains unfair terms is void or ineffective to be upheld?

3.

Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts as well as the principles of effectiveness, proportionality and legal certainty be interpreted as permitting the finding that a loan agreement whose sole term which provides for the manner of loan repayment has been found to be unfair must not continue in force after that term has been excluded therefrom and is therefore void?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 13 May 2022 — Z. sp. z o.o. v A. S.A.

(Case C-326/22)

(2022/C 318/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Z. sp. z o.o.

Defendant: A. S.A.

Question referred

In the context of the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, must Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) be understood as meaning that a consumer, or an undertaking to which a consumer has transferred his/her rights arising from that provision of the directive, may request, pursuant to it, that the creditor hand over a copy of the agreement (as well as the terms of business forming part of the agreement), and information on repayment of the credit which are necessary in order to verify the correctness of the calculation of the sums paid to the consumer as repayment of the proportion of the total cost of the credit in connection with the early repayment thereof and necessary in order to bring a claim for any repayment of the aforementioned amounts?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 23 May 2022 — Audi AG v GQ

(Case C-334/22)

(2022/C 318/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Audi AG

Defendant: GQ

Question referred

1.

Must Article 14(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) be interpreted as precluding the trade mark proprietor / court from prohibiting a third party from using in the course of trade a sign which is identical or confusingly similar to an EU trade mark, in relation to automotive spare parts (radiator grilles) where that sign constitutes a mounting element for an automotive accessory (an emblem reflecting the EU trade mark), and: — where it is technically possible to affix the original emblem reflecting the EU trade mark to an automotive spare part (radiator grille) without reproducing on that part a sign identical or confusingly similar to the EU trade mark; or in a situation — where it is technically impossible to affix the original emblem reproducing the EU trade mark to an automotive spare part (radiator grille) without reproducing on that part a sign identical or confusingly similar to the EU trade mark? — if the answer to any of the questions in 1(a) is in the affirmative:

2.	What evaluation criteria should be used in such cases to determine whether the use of an EU trade mark is consistent with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters?

3.

Must Article 9(2) and Article 9(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark be interpreted as meaning that, where the trade mark is included in the shape of an automotive part and in the absence in Regulation 2017/1001 of a clause that would be similar to the repairs clause in Article 110(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, (2) the trade mark does not fulfil a designation function in that situation?

4.

Must Article 9(2) and Article 9(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark be interpreted as meaning that, where the mounting element for a trade mark, which reflects the shape of the trade mark or is confusingly similar to it, is included in the shape of an automotive part and in the absence in Regulation 2017/1001 of a clause that would be similar to the repairs clause in Article 110(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, that mounting element cannot be regarded as a trade mark with a designation function even if it is identical to the trade mark or confusingly similar to it?

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2022 — f6 Cigarettenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-336/22)

(2022/C 318/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: f6 Cigarettenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12), as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2019/475 (2) of 18 February 2019 (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 42), be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of tobacco tax on heated tobacco which provides, with regard to the calculation of the tax, that, in addition to the tax rate for pipe tobacco, a supplementary tax which is 80 per cent of the tax amount for cigarettes less the tax amount for pipe tobacco is to be levied?

2.

If the supplementary tax on heated tobacco is not another indirect tax on excise goods for specific purposes within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118: Must Article 14(3) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (3) of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24) be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of tobacco tax on heated tobacco which provides, with regard to the calculation of the tax, that, in addition to the tax rate for pipe tobacco, a supplementary tax which is 80 per cent of the tax amount for cigarettes less the tax amount for pipe tobacco is to be levied?

3.

If the supplementary tax on heated tobacco is not another indirect tax on excise goods for specific purposes within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118: Must point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 14(1) and point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 14(2) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24) be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of tobacco tax on heated tobacco which provides, with regard to the calculation of the tax, that that tax is to be determined according to an ad valorem tax rate and a specific tax rate based on the weight and given number of rolls of tobacco?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).

(2)  Council Directive (EU) 2019/475 of 18 February 2019 amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the inclusion of the Italian municipality of Campione d'Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano in the customs territory of the Union and in the territorial application of Directive 2008/118/EC (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 42).

(3)  Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 30 May 2022 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Comune di Ginosa

(Case C-348/22)

(2022/C 318/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Comune di Ginosa

Questions referred

1.	Is Directive 2006/123 (1) valid and binding on the Member States, or is it invalid inasmuch as, being a harmonisation directive, it was adopted only by a majority vote, rather than unanimously, in breach of Article 115 [of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]?

2.

Does Directive 2006/123, also known as the Bolkestein directive, lay down, objectively and in the abstract, sufficiently detailed rules and consequently preclude the exercise of any discretion by national legislatures, this being the minimum requirement for that directive to be regarded as self-executing and immediately applicable?

3.

In the event that Directive 2006/123 is held to be non-self-executing, is the effect of mere exclusion or merely preventive disapplication of national law compatible with the principle of legal certainty even where it is impossible for a national court to interpret national law in conformity with EU law or, on the contrary, may or must national law apply in such a situation, without prejudice to the specific penalties provided for under EU law for the failure by a [Member] State to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty of Accession (Article 49 [TFEU]) or for failure to implement a directive (infringement proceedings)?

4.

Does the direct effect of Article 12(1), (2) and (3) of Directive 2006/123 amount to recognition of the self-executing nature or immediate applicability of that directive or, in the case of a harmonising directive such as Directive 2006/123 (‘[it must be considered] that Articles 9 to 13 of Directive 2006/123 provide for exhaustive harmonisation’ ([paragraph 61 of] the judgment in Promoimpresa)), must it be understood as requiring a [Member] State to adopt harmonisation measures which are not merely general but binding as to their content?

5.

May or must the classification of a directive as self-executing or otherwise and, in the case of classification of a directive as self-executing, the merely preventive disapplication of national law, be regarded as falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts (which have been provided, for that purpose, with specific mechanisms to aid interpretation, such as making a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or seeking a ruling on constitutionality) or as falling also within the remit of the officials or heads of individual municipalities?

6.

In the event that Directive 2006/123 is instead held to be self-executing, given that Article 49 [TFEU] has been held to preclude the automatic extension of concessions over or authorisations concerning State-owned maritime property for tourism and recreational use only ‘in so far as those concessions are of certain cross-border interest’, is the fulfilment of that condition a prerequisite also for the application of Article 12(1) and (2) of [that] directive?

7.

Is it consistent with the aims pursued by Directive 2006/123 and by Article 49 [TFEU] for a national court to find that, generally and in the abstract, there is a certain cross-border interest with reference to the entire national territory or, on the contrary, given the powers, in Italy, of individual municipalities, must such an assessment be understood as relating to the coastal territory of each individual municipality and, therefore, as falling exclusively within the remit of those municipalities?

8.

Is it consistent with the aims pursued by Directive 2006/123 and by Article 49 [TFEU] for a national court to find that, generally and in the abstract, there is a scarcity of resources and available concessions with reference to the entire national territory or, on the contrary, given the powers, in Italy, of individual municipalities, must such an assessment be understood as relating to the coastal territory of each individual municipality and, therefore, as falling exclusively within the remit of those municipalities?

9.

In the event that Directive 2006/123 is held, in the abstract, to be self-executing, can such immediate applicability be regarded as pertaining even in a legislative context such as that in Italy, in which Article 49 of the Codice della navigazione (Shipping Code) (which provides that, on the expiry of a concession, ‘all immovable property shall become the property of the State, without any compensation or reimbursement being due’) operates, and is such a consequence of the self-executing nature or immediate applicability of that directive (particularly with reference to duly authorised masonry structures and concessions over State-owned property that are functionally linked to a tourist business such as a hotel or holiday resort) consistent with the protection of fundamental rights, such as the right to property, which are accorded special protection under EU law and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

---

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

Action brought on 3 June 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-360/22)

(2022/C 318/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

—

declare that, by approving and maintaining in force Articles 85(1)(b) and 87(2)(f) of the Pensioenwet (Law on Pensions), read in conjunction with Article 19b(2) of the Wet op de loonbelasting (Law on Wages Tax), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45, 56 and 63 TFEU and Articles 28, 36 and 40 EEA;

—	order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the opinion that the Netherlands legislation concerning the transfer of pension capital accumulated in the so-called ‘second pillar’, the supplementary pension accumulation via the employer, is incompatible with the free of movement of workers, services and capital, since in a cross-border situation an outgoing transfer of pension capital without being taxed is possible only if the possibilities of redeeming the pension as a capital sum are the same as, or more limited than, in the Netherlands. In a number of Member States, pensions can be wholly or partially redeemed in the form of a lump-sum payment whereby mobile workers transferring their pension capital to one of those Member States are taxed. Similar transfers of pension capital within the Netherlands are not taxed.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2022 — flightright GmbH v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA (TAP)

(Case C-388/22)

(2022/C 318/43)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA (TAP)

Questions referred

1.	Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) exist where meteorological conditions occur which are incompatible with the operation of a flight, irrespective of their specific nature?

2.	If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the extraordinary nature of the meteorological conditions be determined by reference to their regional and seasonal frequency at the place and time at which they occur?

3.

Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, irrespective of the reason for that decision?

4.	If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative, must the reason for the decision also be extraordinary, such that it need not be expected?

---

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

Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-718/20, Wizz Air v Commission

(Case C-440/22 P)

(2022/C 318/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, S. Rating, abogado, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal; and

—	annul the Decision C(2020) 1160 final of the Commission of 24 February 2020 concerning State Aid SA.56244 (2020/N) — Romania — Rescue aid to TAROM (1); and order the Commission to pay the costs; or

—	refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.

First, the General Court erred in law by finding that the condition of existence of an important service which is hard to replicate within the meaning of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (2) (the ‘Guidelines’) is satisfied.

Second, the General Court misapplied the Guidelines regarding the evidence of the difficulty for a competitor to step in.

Third, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the free capacity on the market and the capacity of low fares airlines to operate on domestic routes.

Fourth, the General Court made an error in law by finding that capital increases cannot relate to a restructuring plan.

Fifth, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the duration of TAROM’s restructuring period.

Sixth, the General Court erred in law by concluding that there was no need for the Commission to verify if existing aid has become new aid.

Seventh, the General Court erred in law regarding the Commission’s failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 C 310, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1.

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-455/22)

(2022/C 318/45)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Escobar Gómez, E.A. Stamate and C. Valero, Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

—	declare that, until 3 October 2020, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU; (1)

—	order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It is submitted that, from 2014 until 3 October 2020, S.C. CET Govora nr. 2, S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 2 and S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 3 were operated without a valid environmental permit according to the requirements laid down in Directive 2010/75. The Romanian authorities acknowledged that the three installations continued to be operated without a valid environmental permit until 3 October 2020, but argued that the installations were operated sporadically in order to ensure the safety of the national energy system.

Since Romania failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that S.C. CET Govora nr. 2, S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 2 and S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 3 were operated on the basis of a valid environmental permit, it infringed Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/75.

As regards the argument relating to the sporadic operation of the installations in order to ensure the safety of the national energy system, Directive 2010/75 does not contain such a possibility for a general exemption from the obligation to hold an environmental permit laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive. In addition, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, Member States are responsible for an infringement of obligations under EU law regardless of the State body in question responsible and they may not rely on provisions, practices or circumstances existing in the domestic legal order in order to justify the failure to comply with obligations provided for by [EU] directives. In that regard, Romania cannot rely on purely internal situations such as the operators’ insolvency or disputes relating to the suspension of the installations’ activities in order justify the failure to fulfil obligations under the directive.

---

(1)  Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17).

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González v EUIPO — Ireland and Ornua (La Irlandesa 1943)

(Case T-306/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark La Irlandesa 1943 - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Declaration of invalidity by the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court - Relevant date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 318/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González, SA (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, D. Hanf and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ireland

Other party to the proceedings before the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ornua Co-operative Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 March 2020 (Case R 1499/2016-G).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — LA International Cooperation v Commission

(Case T-609/20) (1)

(Pre-Accession Assistance Instrument - OLAF investigation - Commission decision imposing an administrative sanction - Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general budget of the European Union for a period of four years - Registration in the early detection and exclusion system database - Financial regulation - Unlimited jurisdiction - Proportionality of the sanction)

(2022/C 318/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LA International Cooperation Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Pethke, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, LA International Cooperation Srl, formerly Lattanzio e Associati SpA, seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 20 July 2020 excluding it, for a period of four years, from participating in procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general budget of the European Union and participation in procedures for the award of funds governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund (OJ 2015 L 58, p. 17), and ordered the publication of that exclusion on the Commission’s website.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders LA International Cooperation Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — bet-at-home.com Entertainment v EUIPO (bet-at-home)

(Case T-640/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark bet-at-home - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 318/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: bet-at-home.com Entertainment GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: R. Paulitsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the reversal of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 August 2021 (Case R 2143/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders bet-at-home.com Entertainment GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2022 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-150/21) (1)

(Application for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in China - Initiation of an investigation for circumvention of the existing anti-dumping measures making imports subject to registration - Imports of aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, originating in China - Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 318/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong, Thailand) Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong) (represented by: G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2162 of 18 December 2020 initiating an investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2020 L 431, p. 48).

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2.	Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd are to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2022 — Compass Tex v EUIPO (Trusted Handwork)

(Case T-704/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Trusted Handwork - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 318/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Compass Tex Ltd (Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2021 (Case R 0034/2021-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Trusted Handwork as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	Compass Tex Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

Order of the President of the General Court of 27 June 2022 — Usmanov v Council

(Case T-237/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in respect of Russian actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency - Balancing of interests)

(2022/C 318/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in substance, the suspension of the operation of, in the first place, two acts by which the criteria for inclusion in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures on account of their involvement in actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine were amended and, in the second place, two acts by which his name was added to that list. In particular, the applicant seeks, first, principally, suspension of the operation of 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), in so far as that act concerns him, of 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 or independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 58, p. 1), in so far as that act concerns him, of 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), and of 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); secondly, in the alternative, the suspension of the operation of Decision 2022/337 in so far as that act concerns him, of Implementing Regulation 2022/336 in so far as that act concerns him, of Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Decision 2022/329 and of Article 1(1)(f) and (g) of Regulation 2022/330; and, thirdly, that the Council of the European Union be ordered to pay him the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the costs which he has had to incur in the defence of his interests.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim relief is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2022 — Lacapelle v Parliament

(Case T-240/22 R)

(Interim relief - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Exclusion from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)

(2022/C 318/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Lin Lacapelle (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Decision D-301937 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022, which excluded him from participation in the election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim relief is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2022 — Juvin v Parliament

(Case T-241/22 R)

(Interim relief - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Exclusion from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)

(2022/C 318/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hervé Juvin (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Decision D-301936 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022, which excluded him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim relief is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 18 May 2022 — VEB.RF v Council

(Case T-288/22)

(2022/C 318/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: State Development Corporation ‘VEB.RF’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. Iriarte Ángel and E. Delage González, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, (1) of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as amended, (2) in so far as that decision refers to or may affect the applicant.

—	annul Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014, (3) of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as amended, (4) in so far as that regulation refers to or may affect the applicant.

—	annul Article 1(e), in conjunction with Annex VIII, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (5) of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended, (6) in so far as it refers to or may affect the applicant.

—	annul Article 5h, in conjunction with Annex XIV, of Council Regulation (EU) 833/2014, (7) of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended, (8) in so far as it refers to or may affect the applicant.

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies of the following pleas in law:

1.

Pleas relied on in support of the first two claims: — a) Manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based. — b) Failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons. — c) Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection. — d) Infringement of the right to property and the principle of proportionality. — e) Infringement of the principle of equal treatment. — f) Misuse of power.

2.

Pleas relied on in support of the last two claims: — a) Failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons. — b) Manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based. — c) Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection. — d) Infringement of the right to property. — e) Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16.

(2)  Amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 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 42I, p. 98).

(3)  OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6.

(4)  Amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 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 42I, p. 3).

(5)  OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13.

(6)  Amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/346 of 1 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 63, p. 5).

(7)  OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1.

(8)  Amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/345 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022, L 63, p. 1).

Action brought on 18 May 2022 — Shuvalov v Council

(Case T-289/22)

(2022/C 318/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Igor Shuvalov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. Iriarte Ángel and E. Delage González, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul 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, (1) in so far as it refers to or could affect the applicant.

—	annul 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, (2) in so far as it refers to or could affect the applicant.

—	order the Council 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 manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the contested restrictions are based, in so far as those restrictions were imposed on the applicant without any current and genuine factual or evidential basis.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, in so far as the contested measures lack proper reasoning in respect of the applicant, which prevents him from putting forward a proper defence.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to freedom of expression, in so far as the applicant is sanctioned on the basis of certain observations which are covered by that fundamental right.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards the statement of reasons for the contested measures, lack of genuine evidence for the reasons alleged and infringement of the rights of freedom of expression, defence and property, in so far as the requirement to adduce current and genuine evidence and the requirement to state reasons have not been complied with, which affects the other rights referred to above.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, in so far as that right has been unjustly restricted and, moreover, in a disproportionate manner.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as the comparative position of the applicant has been adversely affected without there being any justification.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, in so far as there is objective, precise and consistent evidence to show that in imposing and extending the restrictive measures different objectives were intended to those stated by the Council.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6; as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 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 42I, p. 98).

(2)  OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6; as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 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 241, p. 3).

Action brought on 27 May 2022 — PH and Others v ECB

(Case T-323/22)

(2022/C 318/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: PH, PI, PJ, PK (represented by: D. Hillemann, C. Fischer and T. Ehls, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul ex tunc Decision ECB-SSM-2022-EN-4 QLF-2020-0037 of the ECB of 22 March 2022 on the objection to the acquisition of qualifying holdings and the exceeding of 50 % of the capital and voting rights, notified on the same date;

—	order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging incorrect application of section 2c paragraph 1b no. 1 of the Kreditwesengesetz (KWG) (1) with regard to ‘reliability’. — This plea is submitted with regard to the disregard of evidence submitted, the use of inadmissible assessment criteria and misjudgment of the facts.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging legally incorrect application of section 2c paragraph 1b no. 4 KWG with regard to ‘professional competence’. — This plea is submitted with regard to taking inappropriate circumstances as a basis and not considering the experience of the first applicant.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging legally incorrect application of section 2c paragraph 1b no. 6 KWG with regard to ‘financial soundness’. — This plea is submitted with regard to requirements that find no support in the law and incorrect calculation of the capital requirements by the defendant.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging legally incorrect application of section 2c paragraph 1b no. 2 KWG with regard to ‘compliance with prudential requirements’. — This plea is submitted with regard to the definition of a strategy, procedures for determining and ensuring risk-bearing capacity, establishment of an internal control system, staffing and future outsourcing of activities.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging legally incorrect application of section 2c paragraph 1b no. 5 KWG with regard to suspicion of money laundering and terrorist financing. — This plea is submitted with regard to lack of consideration of measures taken/planned, evidence provided and failure to recognise missing indications of suspicion.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 19 of and recital 75 in the preamble to Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013, (2) misuse of powers and error of assessment as regards the existence of a ground for refusing permission to acquire the target bank. — This plea is submitted with regard to the scope and quality and timing of evidence submitted and the question of the risk affinity of the first applicant.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging non-consideration of the relevant facts and errors of assessment. — This plea is submitted with regard to non-consideration of evidence, declarations and information provided.

8.	Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. — This plea is submitted with regard to lack of necessity to prohibit the acquisition and disregarding milder measures.

9.	Ninth plea in law, alleging violation of the duties of care and impartiality. — This plea is submitted with regard to non-consideration of the proven successful business activity of the first applicant and consideration of circumstances not relevant to the appealed decision.

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging infringements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. — This plea is submitted with regard to the violation of the freedom of occupation in Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the freedom of competition and freedom of economic activity in Article 16 thereof.

11.	Eleventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. — This final plea is submitted with regard to the integrity and financial soundness of the first three applicants.

---

(1)  Gesetz über das Kreditwesen: the references to this German legislation are to be found in the application.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 83).

Action brought on 1 July 2022 — QF v Council

(Case T-386/22)

(2022/C 318/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QF (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 (CFSP) 2022/582 (1) 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, in so far as the applicant is concerned;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) 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, in so far as the applicant is concerned;

—	order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits, first, that none of the Council’s items of evidence meets the requirements of the European case-law in terms of the standard and quality of the evidence and, second, that none of the assertions of the Council’s statement of reasons is established. Lastly, the applicant puts forward, in support of her plea, elements of a financial nature, which make it possible to establish that the Council’s reasoning is incorrect.

---

(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).

Action brought on 5 July 2022 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — psmtec (SEVEN 7)

(Case T-408/22)

(2022/C 318/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: adp Merkur GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: psmtec GmbH (Illertissen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark SEVEN SEVEN 7 — Application No 18 123 915

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2022 in Case R 1498/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	uphold the opposition in its entirety;

—	refuse the EU trade mark application No 18 123 915 for ‘SEVEN SEVEN 7’ in respect of all of the contested goods in Class 9, namely ‘Software for games on video devices; Game software; Electronic game software; Software’;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 5 July 2022 — Hasbro v EUIPO — Kreativni dogadaji (DRINKOPOLY)

(Case T-413/22)

(2022/C 318/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kreativni dogadaji d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative DRINKOPOLY mark — International registration designating the European Union No 1 062 463

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2022 in Case R 596/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-414/22)

(2022/C 318/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—	annul the decision of 13 October 2021 of the Director for Human Resources providing the applicant with a series of censored CVs that were misrepresented as corresponding to the commitment undertaken by the EEAS as part of the agreement of 9 February 2021;

—	annul the agreement made on 9 February 2021 in Case T-507/20 for lack of consent and failure by the EEAS to observe its terms;

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of 29 March 2022 of the Director-General of Resources Management of the EEAS rejecting complaint R/618/21 of the applicant made against the non-performance of one of the essential terms of the agreement made on 9 February 2021 in Case T-507/20 which provided that the EEAS was to provide the applicant with ‘the elements linked to the qualifications and professional experience of the candidates regarded by the pre-selection panel as best corresponding to the pre-selection criteria for a set of procedures specified by the agreement’;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision concerning the request for access to documents, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of personal data and in the interpretation of Regulations 2018/1725 (1) and 1049/2001, (2) misuse of powers and an interpretation of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) which is incompatible with the provisions of those regulations.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging non-compliance with Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of Article 45 of Regulation 2018/1725 in that the limitation on the access to information infringes the principles of sound administration, right to a fair trial, equality of arms, right to an effective remedy and prevents any judicial review of the acts at issue.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging rejection of the argument of the EEAS which is limited to referring to the withdrawal without responding to the substance of the complaint made and failure to provide reasons for the rejection of the complaint concerning the illegality of the restriction of the right to access effected.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging maladministration and infringement of the Staff Regulations owing to the bias and conflict of interest of the authors of the contested decisions.

In support of the action for annulment of the amicable agreement and the withdrawal in the Case T-507/20, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, put forward principally, based on the fraudulence and invalidity of the agreement in Case T-507/20.

2.	Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, based on the EEAS’s failure to comply with the agreement and wrongful invocation of res judicata.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

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

Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Intel Corporation v Commission

(Case T-417/22)

(2022/C 318/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intel Corporation Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. Beard, J. Williams, Barristers-at-Law, B. Meyring, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

a.

order the Commission to pay compensation of EUR 593 177 661,75, corresponding to: default interest on the principal amount of EUR 1 060 000 000 at the ECB refinancing rate on the first calendar day of the month in which the Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 Intel (the ‘Decision’) was adopted (namely 1,25 %) increased by 3,5 percentage points (or failing that at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court), for the period from 13 August 2009 (the date of provisional payment of the fine by Intel) to 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the European Commission), minus the interest amount already paid to Intel by the Commission of EUR 38 059 598,52;

b.

order the Commission to pay interest on the amount requested at paragraph (a) above for the period from 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the Commission), or alternatively from 28 April 2022 (the date of Intel’s First Interest Application), or from 6 July 2022 (the date of the present action) or, in the further alternative, from the date of judgment in the present action, up to the date on which the Commission actually pays the amount in pursuance of a judgment upholding the present action, at the interest rate applied by the ECB to refinancing operations increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court;

c.

further or alternatively: i. annul any decision of the Commission refusing the reimbursement of the default interest and order it to do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) above; or ii. alternatively, declare that the Commission has acted unlawfully by failing to pay Intel the default interest on the principal amount of a fine reimbursed following the annulment of the Decision, and order it to do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) above;

d.	in any event, order the Commission to pay Intel’s costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By application dated 28 April 2022 in Case T-236/22 (‘Intel’s First Interest Application’), Intel sought the payment of the default interest (and the interest on that default interest) arising from the annulment of Article 2 of the Decision, which the applicant claims that the Commission has not paid. The Commission has still not paid that interest. It has, however, since further communicated with Intel following Intel’s First Interest Application, proffering new reasons for its refusal to do so. By the present action, which is brought on a precautionary basis in light of the uncertainty generated by the Commission’s correspondence, Intel challenges that correspondence. In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 340(2) TFEU, and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the applicant seeks payment of compensation and consequential interest for the damage sustained because of the Commission’s refusal to pay Intel the default interest on the principal amount of a fine reimbursed following the annulment, by judgment T-286/09 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2022:19, of Article 2 of the Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 Intel. In this regard, the applicant relies upon the requirement to take necessary measures to comply with the annulment of a fine pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, which includes the payment of the default interest. The Commission is wrong to claim that time starts running for any non-contractual liability claim from the date of provisional payment of a fine.

2.

Second, further or in the alternative, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the applicant seeks the annulment of any decision of the Commission refusing the reimbursement of the default interest, at the rate referred to above, on the basis that it is (i) contrary to Article 266 TFEU and (ii) misstates the proper date from which time starts running for any non-contractual liability claim.

3.

Third, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU in the further alternative, to the extent the Commission has not adopted a final position (despite requests from the applicant), the applicant seeks a declaration that the Commission has acted unlawfully by failing to pay Intel the said default interest pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, and an order that the Commission pay that default interest at the rate referred to above.

4.

Strictly in the alternative, the applicant avers that any contrary interpretation of the 2002, 2012 and/or 2018 Regulation(s) that would exclude the payment of the default interest in accordance with Article 266 TFEU, as interpreted by the CJEU and GC, would have the consequence that the relevant provisions would be in breach of primary EU law. In those circumstances, the applicant raises an alternative plea of illegality under Article 266 TFEU and Article 277 TFEU on an alternative, contingent basis.

Action brought on 5 July 2022 — HSBC Continental Europe v Commission

(Case T-418/22)

(2022/C 318/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HSBC Continental Europe (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Bailey, C. Thomas, Barristers-at-Law, M. Giner Asins and C. Angeli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	order the Commission to pay forthwith the Default Interest Amount of EUR 3 199 935,70; or, alternatively, any other amount based upon such period and such rate of interest as the Court sees fit;

—

order the Commission to pay compound interest on the Default Interest Amount (or such amount as is specified under paragraph above) from 5 November 2019 to the date of payment of such amount, at the default rate of 3.5 % (being the ECB refinancing rate plus 3.5 %, or alternatively for such period and at such rate as the Court sees fit); or, alternatively, order the Commission to pay such compound interest from either the date of HBCE’s demand on 14 March 2022 or from the date of this application (with simple interest at the default rate of 3.5 % being payable prior to that moment);

—	further or in the alternative, annul the Commission’s Refusal Decision;

—	in the further alternative, declare that the Commission’s failure to act by paying the Default Interest Amount (or any default interest) and compound interest thereon is unlawful; and

—	order the Commission to pay HBCE’s legal and other costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant is entitled to the Default Interest Amount by way of an action under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, on the basis that the Commission was obliged to pay that amount to comply with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-105/17. In this regard, HBCE relies in the alternative on Article 277 TFEU, in the event that the Commission seeks to use secondary legislation to justify its position and such legislation is interpreted in a manner inconsistent with HBCE’s Treaty rights.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging (in the alternative) that the applicant is in any event entitled to recover the Default Interest Amount by way of an action under the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU and under Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the Union owing to the Commission’s failure to pay default interest in compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-105/17. In this regard, HBCE again relies in the alternative on Article 277 TFEU, in the event that the Commission seeks to use secondary legislation to justify its position and such legislation is interpreted in a manner inconsistent with HBCE’s Treaty rights.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant is entitled to the payment of compound interest in respect of the Commission’s failure to pay default interest as set out under the first and second pleas in law, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, and/or the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU and under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU and under Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

4.	Fourth plea in law, seeking (further or in the alternative) annulment under Article 263(4) TFEU of the Commission’s refusal to pay the default interest and compound interest, contrary to Article 266 TFEU.

5.	Fifth plea in law, seeking (in the further alternative) a declaration under Article 265 TFEU that the Commission has acted unlawfully by failing to pay to the applicant default interest and compound interest, contrary to Article 266 TFEU.

Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO (COMMANDOS)

(Case T-425/22)

(2022/C 318/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kalypso Media Group GmbH (Worms, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark COMMANDOS — Application No 18 062 634

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2022 in Case R 1864/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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