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

(2022/C 380/01)

Last publication

OJ C 368, 26.9.2022

Past publications

OJ C 359, 19.9.2022

OJ C 340, 5.9.2022

OJ C 326, 29.8.2022

OJ C 318, 22.8.2022

OJ C 311, 16.8.2022

OJ C 303, 8.8.2022

These texts are available on:

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2022 — IT v État belge

(Case C-365/22)

(2022/C 380/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IT

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Is Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that end-of-life motor vehicles purchased from persons referred to in Article 314 of the directive by an undertaking selling second-hand vehicles and wrecks, which are intended to be sold ‘for parts’ without the parts having been removed from them, constitute second-hand goods within the meaning of that provision?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 22 June 2022 — Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Toruniu v TE

(Case C-422/22)

(2022/C 380/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Toruniu

Respondent: TE

Questions referred

1.

Is the institution of a Member State which has issued an A1 form and which, of its own motion (without a request from the competent institution of the Member State concerned), intends to cancel/withdraw or invalidate the issued form, obliged to make arrangements with the competent institution of another Member State in accordance with rules analogous to those set out in Articles 6 and 16 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 …? (1)

2.

Are the arrangements to be made even before the cancellation/withdrawal or invalidation of the issued form, or is the cancellation/withdrawal or invalidation provisional in nature (Article 16(2)) and will become final in the event that the Member State institution concerned does not raise any objection or present a different view on the matter?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 30 June 2022 — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v HPA — Construções, SA

(Case C-433/22)

(2022/C 380/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Respondent: HPA — Construções, SA

Question referred

Does paragraph 2 of Annex IV to the VAT Directive (1) preclude a provision of national law under which the reduced rate of VAT may be applied only to works contracts for the repair and renovation of buildings in private dwellings which are inhabited at the time when those works are carried out?

---

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 July 2022 — P Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-442/22)

(2022/C 380/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: P Sp. z o.o.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that in a situation where an employee of a VAT taxable person has issued a fraudulent invoice showing VAT, on which he or she has included the employer’s details as the taxable person, without that employer’s knowledge and consent, the person who enters the VAT on the invoice and who is thus liable to pay the VAT is to be considered: — the VAT taxable person whose details were unlawfully used in the invoice; or — the employee who unlawfully entered VAT on that invoice using the details of the VAT taxable person?

2.

In connection with the question of who is to be considered, within the meaning of Article 203 of the aforementioned Council Directive 2006/112/EC, the person who enters VAT on the invoice and is thus liable to pay VAT in the circumstances described in Question 1, is it relevant whether the VAT taxable person that employs the employee who unlawfully entered that taxable person’s details on a VAT invoice may be considered to have failed to exercise due diligence in supervising that employee?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 7 July 2022 — RTL Nederland BV, RTL Nieuws BV; Other party: Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat

(Case C-451/22)

(2022/C 380/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: RTL Nederland BV, RTL Nieuws BV

Other party: Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat

Questions referred

1.	What should be understood by details of ‘occurrences’ and ‘appropriate confidentiality’ as referred to in Article 15(1) of the Occurrences Regulation (1) and in the light of the right to freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the EU Charter and Article 10 of the ECHR?

2.

Is Article 15(1) of the Occurrences Regulation, in the light of the right to freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the EU Charter and Article 10 of the ECHR, to be interpreted as being compatible with a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue of which no information received from reported occurrences may be disclosed?

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: is the competent national authority permitted to apply a general national rule on disclosure by virtue of which information is not disclosed if disclosure would be outweighed by the interests concerned with, for example, relations with other States and international organisations, with inspection, control and monitoring by administrative authorities, with respect for privacy and with preventing natural and legal persons from being disproportionately advantaged and disadvantaged?

4.	When the general national rule on disclosure is applied, does it make any difference whether the information in question is contained in the national database or is information from or about reports contained in other documents, for example, policy documents?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation, amending Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1321/2007 and (EC) No 1330/2007 (OJ 2014 L 122, p. 18).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts München (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2022 — DP v BMW Bank GmbH

(Case C-463/22)

(2022/C 380/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgerichts München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DP

Defendant: BMW Bank GmbH

Questions referred

1.

Does a distance contract within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC (1) and point 7 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU (2) exist where the only personal contact during contractual negotiations was with a credit intermediary who initiates transactions with consumers for and on behalf of the trader but does not personally have any power of representation to conclude the contracts in question?

2.

Does an off-premises contract within the meaning of points 8 and 9 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83 exist where the contractual negotiations take place on the premises of a credit intermediary who initiates transactions with consumers for and on behalf of the trader but does not personally have any power of representation to conclude the contracts in question?

3.	Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements concluded with a consumer constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, now incorporated in point 12 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

(2)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2022 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by the parents

(Case C-484/22)

(2022/C 380/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: GS, represented by the parents

Interested party: Die Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding, without exception, the lawfulness of a return decision adopted in respect of a minor third-country national, accompanied by a refusal of his or her application for international protection and setting him or her a time limit for voluntary departure of 30 days from the date on which the decision becomes final, where, for legal reasons, neither parent can be returned to a country referred to in Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC in the foreseeable future and the minor cannot therefore reasonably be expected to leave the Member State either, on account of his or her family life which is worthy of protection (Articles 7 and 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (2) Article 8 of the ECHR), or is it sufficient that, on the basis of a national statutory provision, the child’s best interests and family life within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC are to be taken into account, following the adoption of the return decision, by virtue of a suspension of the removal?

---

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

(2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 9 August 2022 by Aeris Invest Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 June 2022 in Case T-628/17 Aeris Invest/Comisión v JUR

(Case C-535/22 P)

(2022/C 380/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Single Resolution Board (SRB), Kingdom of Spain, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Banco Santander SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

(i)

principally, set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the General Court of 1 June 2022, Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB, T-628/17, EU:T:2022:315 and, accordingly: — annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A; — annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A; — declare Articles 15 and 22 of Regulation 806/2014 (1) inapplicable in accordance with Article 277 TFEU.

(ii)	order the European Commission and the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs at both instances.

(iii)

in the alternative to the preceding form of order sought, refer the case back to the General Court, in which case reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on eight grounds in support of its appeal against the judgment under appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), in so far as the judgment under appeal states that the statement of reasons for the Resolution Decision is sufficient and not contradictory.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 47 of the Charter, in so far as it states: (i) that the appellant is a third party, (ii) that the confidentiality of the Resolution Decision, Valuation 1 and Valuation 2 are justified, (iii) that the statement of reasons can be disclosed after the appeal has been lodged, and (iv) that the full text of the Resolution Decision is not relevant for the outcome of the proceedings.

By its third ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 18 of Regulation 806/2014 (‘SRMR’), the duty of care and Article 296 TFEU, in that the relevant factors were not taken into account and alternative solutions were available.

By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal errs in law in the application of Articles 14 and 20 SRMR, the duty of care and Article 296 TFEU, in that (i) maximising the sale price is linked to the principles of fair competition and transparency, (ii) the procedure did not comply with the established requirements, and (iii) in any event, the public interest does not justify an infringement of Article 14 SRMR.

By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes the duty of care, Article 17 of the Charter, Article 14 SRMR and the rights of defence, in so far as: (i) it accuses the appellant of failing to prove how the resolution objectives were achieved when those objectives were confidential, (ii) the Single Resolution Board was not adequately prepared, and (iii) the resolution was disproportionate, in that the entity was solvent.

By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 47 of the Charter, Article 6 of the Convention and the principle of audi alteram partem, in so far as: (i) the documents requested by the General Court in the Order of 12 May 2021 were not provided to the appellant, (ii) the evidence necessary for the rights of the defence was denied, and (iii) the appellant was not allowed to examine the documents on which the respondents’ arguments are based.

By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes the right to property by dismissing the appellants plea of illegality, in so far as: (i) there is an interference with the right to property; (ii) writing down the capital of a solvent bank is contrary to the requirement of necessity and the prohibition of arbitrariness, (iii) writing down the debt and capital of a solvent bank is disproportionate, and (iv) there is no adequate compensation.

By its eighth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter and Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union, in so far as (i) the concept of interference with the right to property does not analyse what the procedure was and whether the measure was arbitrary, and (ii) there was no adequate compensation.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rues and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 — OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1.

Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

(Case T-396/22)

(2022/C 380/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law: The decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, (2) because it is not worded in German, which is the language chosen by the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, because it contains instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, it does not disclose the data of other institutions and a judicial review of the decision is practically impossible.

3.

Third plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 53 of the Charter, because the defendant erroneously determined the annual target level; in the alternative, Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 infringe higher-ranking law.

4.

Fourth plea in law: The second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) infringes higher-ranking law because it makes an objectively inappropriate and disproportionate distinction between the members of an Institutional Protection Scheme (‘IPS’) and allows a relative weight to be assigned to the IPS indicator.

5.

Fifth plea in law: The decision infringes, inter alia, Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (4) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions because it uses a relative multiplier for the IPS indicator in the case of the applicant. A differentiation between institutions at the level of the IPS indicator is, on account of the extensive protective effect of an IPS, incompatible with the scheme and arbitrary.

6.

Sixth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts.

7.	Seventh plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s risk profile, which is better than average.

8.	Eighth plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers.

9.	Ninth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (5) and the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1952-1958, p. 59).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(4)  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).

(5)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB

(Case T-397/22)

(2022/C 380/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Deutsche Bank v SRB

(Case T-398/22)

(2022/C 380/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Bank AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, because it contains instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, it does not disclose the data of other institutions and a judicial review of the decision is practically impossible.

2.

Second plea in law: The decision infringes Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (1) in conjunction with Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2) and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 52 of the Charter, in so far as the defendant fixed the annual target level for 2022 at EUR 14 253 573 821,46; in the alternative, Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 infringe higher-ranking law.

3.

Third plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts.

4.

Fourth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s very high loss absorbing capacity and the significantly lower risk that the applicant will, as a consequence, have recourse to the Single Resolution Fund in the event of its resolution.

5.	Fifth plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers.

6.	Sixth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (4) and the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(4)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB

(Case T-399/22)

(2022/C 380/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law: The decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, (2) because it is not worded in German, which is the language chosen by the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, because it contains instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, it does not disclose the data of other institutions and a judicial review of the decision is practically impossible.

3.

Third plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 53 of the Charter, because the defendant erroneously determined the annual target level; in the alternative, Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 infringe higher-ranking law.

4.

Fourth plea in law: The second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) infringes higher-ranking law because it makes an objectively inappropriate and disproportionate distinction between the members of an Institutional Protection Scheme (‘IPS’) and allows a relative weight to be assigned to the IPS indicator.

5.

Fifth plea in law: The decision infringes, inter alia, Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (4) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions because it uses a relative multiplier for the IPS indicator in the case of the applicant. A differentiation between institutions at the level of the IPS indicator is, on account of the extensive protective effect of an IPS, incompatible with the scheme and arbitrary.

6.

Sixth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia, because they infringe the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts.

7.

Seventh plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with its risk profile, which is qualified by the dual protection scheme provided by the IPS of the Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe (Savings Banks Finance Group, Germany) and the Hessen-Thüringen Reserve Fund.

8.	Eighth plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers.

9.	Ninth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (5) and the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1952-1958, p. 59).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(4)  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).

(5)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Berlin Hyp v SRB

(Case T-400/22)

(2022/C 380/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berlin Hyp AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the applicant’s 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — DVB Bank v SRB

(Case T-401/22)

(2022/C 380/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Dz Hyp v SRB

(Case T-402/22)

(2022/C 380/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Hyp AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — DZ Bank v SRB

(Case T-403/22)

(2022/C 380/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Deutsche Kreditbank v SRB

(Case T-404/22)

(2022/C 380/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Kreditbank AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law: The decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, (2) because it is not worded in German, which is the language chosen by the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, because it contains instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, it does not disclose the data of other institutions and a judicial review of the decision is practically impossible.

3.

Third plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 53 of the Charter, because the defendant erroneously determined the annual target level; in the alternative, Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 infringe higher-ranking law.

4.

Fourth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia, because they infringe the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts.

5.	Fifth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s risk profile, which is better than average.

6.	Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers.

7.	Seventh plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (3) and the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1952-1958, p. 59).

(3)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

Action brought on 12 July 2022 — PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-442/22)

(2022/C 380/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: PU (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decisions, namely (a) Decision 015/2022 of 23 March 2022 of the College of the defendant rejecting the complaint of 3 December 2021 against Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (b) Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (c) Decision 021/2022 of 30 May 2022 of the College of the defendant and (d) any other related action or omission of the organs of the defendant,

—	order the defendant to pay the total amount of EUR 100 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered, and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging procedural errors: — breach of the principle of impartiality, of the principle of equality in the appraisal procedure to be followed in respect of the candidates proposed by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, of the essential procedural requirements under Articles 1 to 3 of Decision No 013/2020 of the College laying down rules on the procedure for the appointment of European Delegated Prosecutors, of the obligation to provide a record of the interview and of the right to be heard.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging flaws in the grounds of the contested decisions.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and exceeding of the limits of discretion.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.

Action brought on 12 July 2022 — PV v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-443/22)

(2022/C 380/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: PV (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decisions, namely (a) Decision 015/2022 of 23 March 2022 of the College of the defendant rejecting the complaint of 3 December 2021 against Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (b) Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (c) Decision 021/2022 of 30 May 2022 of the College of the defendant and (d) any other related action or omission of the organs of the defendant,

—	order the defendant to pay the total amount of EUR 100 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered, and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant raises the same pleas as those relied on in Case T-442/22, PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Action brought on 20 July 2022 — PW v EEAS

(Case T-448/22)

(2022/C 380/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PW (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the implicit decision of the defendant dated 30 July 2021 refusing to correct the calculation of the reimbursement of his annual travel expenses for 2020 as regards his children and, in as far as necessary, the annulment of the decision of the defendant, dated 14 April 2022, rejecting his complaint filed on 28 October 2021, under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations; and,

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and a breach of the principle of good administration.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care.

Action brought on 20 July 2022 — Evonik Operations v Commission

(Case T-449/22)

(2022/C 380/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evonik Operations GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and T. Delille, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the application admissible and well-founded;

—

annul the Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/692 of 16 February 2022 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures and correcting that Regulation insofar as it introduces an harmonised classification and labelling for the substance silanamine, 1,1,1-trimethyl-N- (trimethylsilyl)-, hydrolysis products with silica; pyrogenic, synthetic amorphous, nano, surface treated silicon dioxide (‘the Substance’, or ‘SAS-HMDS’) (CAS No. 68909-20-6) (‘the Contested Regulation’’) (1);

—	order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and

—	take such other or further measure as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation was adopted in breach of several provisions of the CLP Regulation (2), including Articles 36, 37 and Section 3.9 of its Annex I. In particular, RAC failed to demonstrate that the criteria for classification of the Substance as STOT RE 2 were met, hence its opinion could not validly support the contested classification. The Commission could therefore not validly find on the basis of the RAC Opinion that the contested classification was appropriate. In adopting the Contested Regulation, the Commission therefore breached Article 37(5) of the CLP Regulation.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that RAC did not follow the procedure set out by Article 37(4) of the CLP Regulation, breaching thereby those provisions in several regards. First, RAC failed to adopt the RAC Opinion within the 18-month deadline prescribed by law. Second, RAC did not give a formal opportunity to comment on its opinion to the concerned parties though this is specifically required by the CLP Regulation.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed in its duties under Article 37(5), in that it has not adequately verified that the CLH procedure had been properly conducted as per the CLP Regulation. As a result, the Commission could not validly find that the contested classification was appropriate and adopted the Contested Regulation in breach of Article 37(5) of the CLP Regulation.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that in adopting the Contested Regulation without the prior conduct and documentation of an Impact Assessment, the Commission breached its commitments under the Interinstitutional Agreement on better-law-making and the principle of sound administration.

---

(1)  OJ L 129, 2022, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 353, 2008, p. 1).

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — QN v eu-LISA

(Case T-484/22)

(2022/C 380/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QN (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the operational management of large-Scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	uphold the application;

—	annul the contested acts;

—	order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of 3 000 euros;

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the European Union Agency for the operational management of large-Scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA) of 22 December 2021 to not include the applicant’s name on the list of staff members reclassified to Grade AD 10 in the 2021 reclassification exercise, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation and application of the defendant’s instrument governing reclassifications, namely decision 2016-016 of the Management Board, in so far as, according to the defendant, that decision subjects reclassification, at each grade, to a condition of average minimum seniority in the grade that the staff member to be reclassified must satisfy and which, in the applicant’s case, for AD 9, was four years. The applicant relies on the fact that he obtained a very high number of reclassification points and that his grade and AD 10 were the only AD grades to which that condition of seniority was applied.

2.	Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, claiming that the abovementioned decision is unlawful on the ground that it is incompatible with a number of principles and rules of law governing public service employment, in particular those regarding reclassification based on merit.

3.

Third plea in law, put forward in the further alternative, alleging failure to observe the principle of equal treatment and the principle that officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects, and a manifest error of assessment in so far as, for all AD grades except that of the applicant and AD 10, reclassifications occurred despite the fact that the average minimum seniority condition was not satisfied.

Action brought on 2 August 2022 –Sweden v Commission

(Case T-485/22)

(2022/C 380/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: H. Shev och F.-L. Göransson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as the decision entails for Sweden a flat-rate correction of five percent, corresponding to a sum of EUR 13 856 996,64 in respect of aid paid to Sweden for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 claim years, and,

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, according to the applicant, has not complied with its duty to state reasons since the Commission’s reasoning when it made the decision or the deficiencies that are alleged against Sweden are not clear. There is therefore insufficient information to determine whether the contested decision is well founded.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed Article 52 of Regulation 1306/2013 (2) and Articles 28-29 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (3) owing to the Commission having erred in its assessment when it found that there were systemic deficiencies in the implementation of cross-checks, which affects the quality of LPIS updates, which is considered to constitute a weakness in the key controls. That is the case because, (1), the quality of the update of the LPIS can only be assessed in relation to the land parcel database as a whole, (2), the Commission’s choice of land parcels for investigation was too limited to be able to demonstrate a systemic deficiency, and, (3), the Commission’s finding as to the number of deficient land parcels and the error rate — which was apparently the basis for the Commission’s assessment that there is a systemic deficiency in the LPIS update — is not correct.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation 1306/2013 and the Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections in the framework of the conformity and financial clearance of accounts procedures (C(2015)3675 of 8 June 2015). It is clear from those guidelines and the principle of proportionality, which is also expressed in Article 52(2) of Regulation 1306/2013, that the flat-rate correction imposed is not justified or proportionate. Neither the extent of the alleged infringement, with regard to its nature and scope, nor the financial damage that the infringement might have caused the European Union can justify a flat-rate correction of 5 % calculated on the basis of all the pastureland that was subject to image updating over the 2016-2018 period, corresponding to the sum of EUR 13 856 996,64. The flat-rate correction at issue in the contested decision is therefore not compatible with the aforementioned provisions or the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 157, p. 15.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(3)  OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69.

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — Zitro International v EUIPO — e-gaming (Smiley wearing a top hat)

(Case T-491/22)

(2022/C 380/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zitro International Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: e-gaming s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a smiley wearing a top hat) — Application for registration No 17 884 680

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2022 in Case R 2005/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and whoever opposes the action in this case to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 10 August 2022 — Cecoforma and Sopexa v REA

(Case T-493/22)

(2022/C 380/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Conception, études et coopération de formation (Cecoforma) (Liège, Belgium), Société pour l’expansion des ventes des produits agricoles et alimentaires (Sopexa) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Schutyser and R. Meylemans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the European Research Executive Agency, undated but notified to Cecoforma on 20 July 2022, to award lot 1 of the public contract (REA/2021/OP/0002) concerning the organisation of promotion events and campaigns and market intelligence in third countries for the agri-food sector to One (Gopa Com, Edelman Public Relations Worldwide SA, Opera Business Dreams SL) and not to Cecoforma and Sopexa;

—	order the European Research Executive Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 170(3) of the Financial Regulation, (1) points 23 and 31 of Annex I to the Financial Regulation, and the general principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment, and, secondly, manifest error of assessment. The applicants claim in that regard that either the Agency failed to examine whether the tender of the tenderer to whom the contract was awarded was prima facie abnormally low, it took the view that the tender submitted by that tenderer was not abnormally low, or it accepted that tenderer’s justification and took the view that its tender was not abnormally low.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 167(1)(a) of the Financial Regulation, Article 168(6) of the Financial Regulation, point 30.2(c) of Annex I to the Financial Regulation, and the general principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment. The applicants claim that either the Agency did not verify whether the tenders were in order, or it wrongly took the view that the tender submitted by the successful tenderer was in order.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

Action brought on 11 August 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — BASF (OMEGOR)

(Case T-495/22)

(2022/C 380/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BASF AS (Oslo, Norway)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark OMEGOR — International registration designating the European Union No 1 409 659

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2022 in Case R 1168/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 11 August 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — BASF (OMEGOR VITALITY)

(Case T-496/22)

(2022/C 380/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BASF AS (Oslo, Norway)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark OMEGOR VITALITY — Application for registration No 18 082 021

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2022 in Case R 1200/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Levantur v EUIPO — Fantasia Hotels & Resorts (Fantasia BAHIA PRINCIPE HOTELS & RESORTS)

(Case T-504/22)

(2022/C 380/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Levantur, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero Lavie and C. Caballero Pastor, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fantasia Hotels & Resorts, SL (Zaragoza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark BAHIA PRINCIPE HOTELS & RESORTS — EU trade mark No 17 365 016

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2022 in Case R 1000/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings (FANTASÍA HOTELS & RESORTS, SL) to pay the costs of the present action before the General Court;

—	order the cancellation applicant, FANTASÍA HOTELS & RESORTS, SL, to pay the costs of the proceedings in Case R 1000/2021-1 and of the cancellation proceedings No. 36483 C.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Articles 16(1)(b), 7(2)(d), 8(5) and 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and of the requirement to state reasons and the principles of legal certainty and sound administration;

—	Infringement of Articles 60(1)(c), 8(4), 95(1) and 97(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of Articles 7(2)(d) and 10(3) and (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and the relevant case-law;

—	Infringement of Articles 8(1), 60(1)(c) and 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Levantur v EUIPO — Fantasia Hotels & Resorts (LUXURY BAHIA PRINCIPE FANTASIA Don Pablo Collection)

(Case T-505/22)

(2022/C 380/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Levantur, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero Lavie and C. Caballero Pastor, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fantasia Hotels & Resorts, SL (Zaragoza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark LUXURY BAHIA PRINCIPE FANTASIA Don Pablo Collection — EU trade mark No 16 020 547

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2022 in Case R 1973/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings (FANTASÍA HOTELS & RESORTS, SL) to pay the costs of the present action before the General Court;

—	order the cancellation applicant, FANTASÍA HOTELS & RESORTS, SL, to pay the costs of the proceedings in Case R 1973/2020-1 and of the cancellation proceedings No. 36444C.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Articles 16(1)(b), 7(2)(d), 8(5) and 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and of the requirement to state reasons and the principles of legal certainty and sound administration;

—	Infringement of Articles 60(1)(c), 8(4), 95(1) and 97(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of Articles 7(2)(d) and 10(3) and (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and the relevant case-law;

—	Infringement of Articles 8(1), 60(1)(c) and 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 22 August 2022 — Sastela v EUIPO — Zenergo (Tante Mitzi Caffè CAFFÈ — STRUDEL — BARETTO)

(Case T-510/22)

(2022/C 380/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sastela, proizvodnja peciva in tort, d.o.o. (Ljutomer, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zenergo d.o.o. (Zgornja Polskava, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Tante Mitzi Caffè CAFFÈ — STRUDEL — BARETTO — European Union trade mark No 11 425 394

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2022 in Case R 1413/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	uphold the application in this case, reform the contested decision to uphold its appeal to the Board of Appeal and reform the decision of the cancellation division to the effect of setting aside the revocation of the contested trade mark;

—	in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further deliberation;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 24 August 2022 — Vitromed v EUIPO — Vitromed Healthcare (VITROMED Germany)

(Case T-514/22)

(2022/C 380/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vitromed GmbH (Jena, Germany) (represented by: M. Linß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vitromed Healthcare (Jaipur, India)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark VITROMED Germany — Application No 18 209 244

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2022 in Case R 1670/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	reject the opposition in its entirety;

—	order the opponent to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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