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

(2022/C 398/01)

Last publication

OJ C 389, 10.10.2022

Past publications

OJ C 380, 3.10.2022

OJ C 368, 26.9.2022

OJ C 359, 19.9.2022

OJ C 340, 5.9.2022

OJ C 326, 29.8.2022

OJ C 318, 22.8.2022

These texts are available on:

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

Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court

(2022/C 398/02)

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court of the European Union for the period from 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2028 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 27 April 2022 (1), Mr Goulielmos Valasidis took the oath before the Court of Justice on 15 September 2022.

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court of the European Union for the period from 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2028 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 29 June 2022 (2), Mr Steven Verschuur took the oath before the Court of Justice on 15 September 2022.

Following her appointment as Judge at the General Court of the European Union for the period from 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2028 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 20 July 2022 (3), Ms Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger took the oath before the Court of Justice on 15 September 2022.

---

(1)  OJ L 126, 29.4.2022, p. 23.

(2)  OJ L 173, 30.6.2022, p. 77.

(3)  OJ L 198, 27.7.2022, p. 16.

Election of the President of the General Court

(2022/C 398/03)

Meeting on 16 September 2022, the Judges of the General Court, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Marc van der Woude President of the General Court, for the period from 16 September 2022 to 31 August 2025.

Election of the Vice-President of the General Court

(2022/C 398/04)

Meeting on 16 September 2022, the Judges of the General Court, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Savvas Papasavvas Vice-President of the General Court for the period from 16 September 2022 to 31 August 2025.

Elections of Presidents of Chambers

(2022/C 398/05)

On 19 September 2022, the General Court, in accordance with Article 9(3) and Article 18(1), of the Rules of Procedure, elected as Presidents of the Chamber sitting with three Judges and with five Judges for the period from 19 September 2022 to 31 August 2025:

—	Mr. Spielmann;

—	Ms Marcoulli;

—	Mr. Schalin;

—	Mr. da Silva Passos;

—	Mr. Svenningsen;

—	Ms Costeira;

—	Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk;

—	Mr. Kornezov;

—	Mr. Truchot;

—	Ms Porchia.

Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

(2022/C 398/06)

At the plenum on 19 September 2022, the General Court, composed of 54 Judges, decided to form eight Chambers composed of five Judges, sitting with five Judges and with three Judges, attached to six formations, and two Chambers composed of six Judges, sitting with five Judges and with three Judges, attached to ten formations, for the period from 19 September 2022 to 31 August 2025. Each formation of the ten Chambers of the General Court shall be presided over by a President of the Chamber, who shall be elected at the same time President of the Chamber sitting with three Judges and with five Judges.

At the plenum on 23 September 2022, the General Court decided, on a proposal from the President, submitted in accordance with Article 13(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to assign the Judges to Chambers for the period from 23 September 2022 to 31 August 2025 as follows:

First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

The extended composition of the Chamber, sitting with five Judges, is composed of three Judges from the composition before which the case was initially brought and two Judges appointed from among the three other Judges from the First Chamber, on a rotational basis.

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Spielmann, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Valančius and Mr Mastroianni Judges;

Formation B: Mr Valančius and Ms Brkan, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Valančius and Mr Gâlea, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Valančius and Mr Tóth, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Mastroianni and Ms Brkan, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Mastroianni and Mr Gâlea, Judges;

Formation G: Mr Mastroianni and Mr Tóth, Judges;

Formation H: Ms Brkan and Mr Gâlea, Judges;

Formation I: Ms Brkan and Mr Tóth, Judges;

Formation J: Mr Gâlea and Mr Tóth, Judges.

Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

The extended composition of the Chamber, sitting with five Judges, is composed of three Judges from the composition before which the case was originally brought and two Judges appointed from among the three other Judges from the Second Chamber, on a rotational basis.

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Marcoulli, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Schwarcz, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Ms Tomljenović, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Valasidis, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Schwarcz and Ms Tomljenović, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation G: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Valasidis, Judges;

Formation H: Ms Tomljenović and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation I: Ms Tomljenović and Mr Valasidis, Judges;

Formation J: Mr Norkus and Mr Valasidis, Judges.

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Schalin, President of the Chamber, Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl, Mr Nõmm, Ms Steinfatt and Mr Kukovec, Judges.

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Schalin, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl and Mr Nõmm, Judges;

Formation B: Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

Formation C: Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl and Mr Kukovec, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Nõmm and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Nõmm and Mr Kukovec, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Steinfatt and Mr Kukovec, Judges.

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr da Silva Passos, President of the Chamber, Mr Gervasoni, Ms Półtorak, Ms Reine and Ms Pynnä, Judges.

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr da Silva Passos, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Gervasoni and Ms Półtorak, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Gervasoni and Ms Reine, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Gervasoni and Ms Pynnä, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Półtorak and Ms Reine, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Półtorak and Ms Pynnä, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Reine and Ms Pynnä, Judges.

Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Svenningsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Mac Eochaidh, Mr Laitenberger, Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares and Ms Stancu, Judges.

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Svenningsen, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Mac Eochaidh and Mr Laitenberger, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Mac Eochaidh and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Mac Eochaidh and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Laitenberger and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Laitenberger and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares and Ms Stancu, Judges.

Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Costeira, President of the Chamber, Ms Kancheva, Mr Öberg, Mr Zilgalvis and Ms Tichy-Fisslberger, Judges.

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Costeira, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Ms Kancheva and Mr Öberg, Judges;

Formation B: Ms Kancheva and Mr Zilgalvis, Judges;

Formation C: Ms Kancheva and Ms Tichy-Fisslberger, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Öberg and Mr Zilgalvis, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Öberg and Ms Tichy-Fisslberger, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Zilgalvis and Ms Tichy-Fisslberger, Judges.

Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk, President of the Chamber, Mr Buttigieg, Mr Hesse, Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Ms Ricziová, Judges.

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Buttigieg and Mr Hesse, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Buttigieg and Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Buttigieg and Ms Ricziová, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Hesse and Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Hesse and Ms Ricziová, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Ms Ricziová, Judges.

Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kornezov, President of the Chamber, Mr De Baere, Mr Petrlík, Mr Kecsmár and Ms Kingston, Judges.

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

M. Kornezov, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr De Baere and Mr Petrlík, Judges;

Formation B: Mr De Baere and Mr Kecsmár, Judges;

Formation C: Mr De Baere and Ms Kingston, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Petrlík and M. Kecsmár, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Petrlík and Ms Kingston, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Kecsmár and Ms Kingston, Judges.

Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Truchot, President of the Chamber, Mr Kanninen, Ms Frendo, Mr Sampol Pucurull and Ms Perišin, Judges.

Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Truchot, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Kanninen and Ms Frendo, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Kanninen and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Kanninen and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Frendo and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Frendo and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Sampol Pucurull and Ms Perišin, Judges.

Tenth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Porchia, President of the Chamber, Mr Jaeger, Mr Madise, Mr Nihoul and Mr Verschuur, Judges.

Tenth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Porchia, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Jaeger and Mr Madise, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Jaeger and Mr Nihoul, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Jaeger and Mr Verschuur, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Madise and Mr Nihoul, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Madise and Mr Verschuur, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Nihoul and Mr Verschuur, Judges.

The Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Chambers shall be responsible for cases stemming from the employment relationship between the European Union and its staff, and, where appropriate, the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers shall be responsible for cases concerning intellectual property rights referred to in Title IV of the Rules of Procedure.

The General Court also decided the following:

—	the President and the Vice-President shall not be attached permanently to a Chamber;

—

in the course of each judicial year, the Vice-President shall sit in each of the Chambers sitting with five Judges, on the basis of one case per Chamber in the following order: — the first case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the First Chamber, the Second Chamber, the Third Chamber, the Fourth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber; — the third case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the Sixth Chamber, the Seventh Chamber, the Eighth Chamber, the Ninth Chamber and the Tenth Chamber.

Where the Vice-President is called upon to sit in a Chamber composed of five Judges, that extended formation shall be composed of the Vice-President, the Judges of the three-judge formation before which the case was initially brought and one of the other Judges of the Chamber in question, determined on the basis of the reverse order to the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure.

Composition of the Grand Chamber

(2022/C 398/07)

At the plenum on 23 September 2022, the General Court decided that, in respect of the period from 23 September 2022 to 31 August 2025 and pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the fifteen Judges composing the Grand Chamber shall be the President of the General Court, the Vice-President, two Presidents of Chambers designated on a rotational basis, the Judges of the three-judge chamber before which the case was initially brought and the two judges which should have completed that three-judge chamber were the case to have been assigned to a five-judge chamber, and six Judges designated on a rotational basis from among all the Judges of the General Court with the exclusion of the Presidents of Chambers, according to, alternately, the order of precedence laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure and that order in reverse.

Designation of a Judge to replace a Judge who is prevented from acting

(2022/C 398/08)

Criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers

(2022/C 398/09)

At its plenum on 23 September 2022, the General Court laid down, in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, the criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers.

These are as follows:

1.	Cases shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as possible after the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure.

2.

Civil service cases, that is, cases that stem from the employment relationship between the European Union and its staff, shall be allocated to the four Chambers specifically designated to that effect in the decision assigning Judges to Chambers, on a rotational basis, in accordance with date on which those cases are registered at the Registry.

3.

Cases concerning intellectual property rights referred to in Title IV of the Rules of Procedure shall be allocated to the six Chambers specifically designated to that effect in the decision assigning Judges to Chambers, on a rotational basis, in accordance with the date on which those cases are registered at the Registry.

4.

Cases other than those referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following two separate rotas: — for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures, — for all other cases.

5.	The President of the General Court may derogate from the rotas outlined in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 in order to take account of a connection between certain cases or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.

6.	The criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers set out above shall be laid down for the period from 23 September 2022 to 31 August 2025.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 June 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-278/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Liability of Member States for loss or harm caused to individuals by breaches of EU law - Breach of EU law attributable to the national legislature - Breach of the Constitution of a Member State attributable to the national legislature - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

(2022/C 398/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, I. Martínez del Peral and P. Van Nuffel, acting as agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, S. Centeno Huerta, A. Gavela Llopis and J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, acting as agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Ley 40/2015 de Régimen Jurídico del Sector Público (Law 40/2015 on the legal system governing the public sector) of 1 October 2015 and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Ley 39/2015 del Procedimiento Administrativo Común de las Administraciones Públicas (Law 39/2015 on the common administrative procedure of the public authorities) of 1 October 2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principle of effectiveness, in that those provisions make compensation for the loss or harm caused to individuals by the Spanish legislature as a result of an infringement of EU law subject to: — the condition that there is a decision of the Court of Justice declaring that the statutory provision applied is incompatible with EU law; — the condition that the individual harmed has obtained, before any court, a final decision dismissing an action brought against the administrative act which caused the loss or harm, without providing for an exception for cases in which the loss or harm stems directly from an act or omission on the part of the legislature, contrary to EU law, without there being any administrative act open to challenge; — a limitation period of one year from the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision of the Court of Justice declaring that the statutory provision applied is incompatible with EU law, without covering cases in which such a decision does not exist, and — the condition that compensation may be awarded only in respect of loss or harm which occurred within five years preceding the date of that publication, unless otherwise provided for in that decision;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Spain each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Pharol, SGPS, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-67/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Tax on the income of legal persons - Dividends received from a company established in the Member State of the beneficiary company - Dividends received from a company established in a third country - National legislation for the elimination of double taxation - Difference in treatment - Restriction - Justification - Efficiency of fiscal verification - Absence of a convention obligation on communicating tax information)

(2022/C 398/11)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pharol, SGPS, SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation aimed at the elimination of the economic double taxation of dividends under which a resident company of the Member State concerned can deduct from its taxable profit dividends which had been distributed to it by another resident company, but cannot deduct dividends distributed by a company established in a third country, on the grounds that the latter is not linked to the Member State of taxation by any convention obligation on communicating tax information, where that deduction is subject to a condition relating to the tax liability of the distributing company in the third country and, due to the absence of a convention obligation of that third country on providing information, it is impossible to obtain that information from the third country. A Member State is not required to grant the taxpayer the possibility to produce for himself or herself the evidence to show that the necessary conditions to obtain the deduction are satisfied where, due to the absence of a convention obligation, that Member State cannot verify the veracity of that evidence.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 2.2.2022.

Appeal brought on 19 December 2021 by Ioana-Felicia Rosca against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-434/19, Rosca v Commission

(Case C-802/21 P)

(2022/C 398/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ioana-Felicia Rosca (represented by: L.-O. Tufler, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 07/09/2022, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Ms Ioana-Felicia Rosca should bear her own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2022 — Gemeinde A v Finanzamt

(Case C-344/22)

(2022/C 398/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeinde A

Defendant: Finanzamt

Questions referred

1.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, does a municipality which, on the basis of municipal bylaws, imposes a ‘spa tax’ (of a certain amount per day’s stay) on visitors staying in the municipality (spa guests) for the provision of spa facilities (for example a spa park, a spa building, footpaths) carry out, by providing the spa facilities to the spa guests in return for a spa tax, an economic activity for the purposes of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if the spa facilities are in any event freely accessible to everyone (and therefore also, for example, to residents not subject to the spa tax or to other persons not subject to the spa tax)?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: In the circumstances in the main proceedings described above, is the municipal territory alone the relevant geographic market for the purpose of examining whether treating the municipality as a non-taxable person would lead to ‘significant distortions of competition’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

---

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2022 — MK v WB

(Case C-461/22)

(2022/C 398/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: MK

Respondent: WB

Questions referred

Is a legally appointed curator who performs that activity in a professional capacity a controller within the meaning of Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation — ‘the GDPR’)?

Is he or she required to provide information in accordance with Article 15 of the GDPR?

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2022 — Laudamotion GmbH v flightright GmbH

(Case C-474/22)

(2022/C 398/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Laudamotion GmbH

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: flightright GmbH

Questions referred

1.

Does the right to compensation for a delay in a flight of more than three hours after the scheduled time of arrival under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) require that, in accordance with Article 3(2)(a) thereof, the passenger must present himself or herself for check-in at the time indicated by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, but not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time, or is the case of a long delay in the above sense exempt from that requirement — as in the case where a flight is cancelled?

2.

In the event that the right to compensation is not exempt, on the sole basis of the occurrence of a long delay in the above sense, from the requirement for passengers to present themselves for check-in, does such an exemption apply where the passenger had sufficiently reliable information indicating that the flight would arrive only with a long delay in the above sense?

---

(1)  Regulation 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).

Action brought on 18 July 2022 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-481/22)

(2022/C 398/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that water intended for human consumption meets the minimum requirement of the parametric value for Trihalomethanes — Total set out in Annex I, Part B of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1) (the ‘Directive’) in 21 public water supply zones and in 9 private group water schemes, and that the necessary remedial action is taken as soon as possible to restore the quality of the water intended for human consumption in the aforementioned public water supply zones and private group water schemes and failing to give priority to its enforcement action, having regard inter alia to the extent to which the relevant parametric value has been exceeded and to the potential danger to human health, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I Part B, and Article 8(2) of the Directive; and

—	order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 26 December 2003, with stricter requirements applying from 26 December 2008.

---

(1)  OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 22 July 2022 — EI v SC Brink’s Cash Solutions SRL

(Case C-496/22)

(2022/C 398/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: EI

Respondent: SC Brink’s Cash Solutions SRL

Questions referred

1.

Do [the first subparagraph of] Article 1[(1)(b)] and Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, (1) read in the light of recitals 2 and 6 of the preamble to that directive, preclude national legislation which allows an employer not to consult the workers affected by a collective redundancy procedure since they have neither appointed representatives nor a legal obligation to appoint them?

2.

Are [the first subparagraph of] Article 1[(1)(b)] and Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, read in the light of recitals 2 and 6 of the preamble to that directive, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances described above, the employer is required to inform and consult all the employees affected by the collective redundancy procedure?

---

(1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 05 Volume 005 P. 95).

Action brought on 29 July 2022 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-516/22)

(2022/C 398/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, P.-J. Loewenthal, T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that the United Kingdom, in authorising the enforcement of the arbitral award rendered in ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, failed to fulfil its obligations: — under Article 4(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 127(1) of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (1) (‘the Withdrawal Agreement’), by deciding on the interpretation of Article 351(1) TFEU and its application to the implementation of the arbitral award while the same matter had been decided by extant Commission decisions and was awaiting adjudication before the Union courts; — under Article 351(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 127(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement, by misinterpreting and misapplying the notions of ‘rights […] of one or more third countries’ and ‘affected by the Treaties’; — under points a and b of the first paragraph as well as the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 127(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement, by failing to refer a question on validity of the Commission’s decision of 26 May 2014 enjoining Romania from implementing the arbitral award (‘the 2014 suspension injunction’) and the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2014 opening the formal investigation procedure into Romania’s implementation of the arbitral award (2) (‘the 2014 opening decision’) and by failing, as a court of last instance, to refer a question on the interpretation of Union law that was neither acte clair nor acte éclairé; — under Article 108(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 127(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement, by ordering Romania to violate its Union law obligations flowing from the 2014 suspension injunction and the 2014 opening decision; — order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 19 February 2020 in Micula v Romania, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ordered the enforcement of a 2013 arbitral award rendered against Romania in favour of certain Swedish investors for the infringement by Romania of a bilateral investment treaty concluded in 2003 between Sweden and Romania.

The Commission had previously found that the implementation of the arbitral award constitutes the grant of unlawful and incompatible State aid by Romania in favour of those investors. The Court has since found that that award violates fundamental rules and principles of Union law, in particular Articles 267 and 344 of the TFEU, the general principles of autonomy and mutual trust, and the operation of the institutions of the Union in accordance with the Union constitutional framework.

Relying on Article 351(1) TFEU, the Supreme Court concluded that the arbitral award should be enforced in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that its enforcement was contrary to Union law. In so doing, the United Kingdom infringed Article 4(3) of TEU and Articles 108(3), 267(1)(a) and (b) and (3), and 351(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 127(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement.

---

(1)  OJ 2020, L 29, p. 7.

(2)  State aid — Romania — State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) — Implementation of Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2014, C 393, p. 27).

Appeal brought on 2 August 2022 by Eurobolt BV, Fabory Nederland BV, ASF Fischer BV against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2022 in Case T-479/20, Eurobolt and Others v Commission

(Case C-517/22 P)

(2022/C 398/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Eurobolt BV, Fabory Nederland BV, ASF Fischer BV (represented by: B. Natens and A. Willems, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Stafa Group BV

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal;

—

uphold the application at first instance and annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/611 of 30 April 2020 re-imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (1) (Contested Regulation) insofar as it concerns the appellants; and

—	order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs and its own costs for the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice and order any other party to the appeal to pay their own costs; or in the alternative

—	refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; and

—	reserve the costs for the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice for final judgment by the General Court and order any other party to the proceedings to pay their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on seven pleas in law.

First, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 266 TFEU and the principle of non-retroactivity by finding that the Contested Regulation could retroactively reimpose and prevent repayment of anti-circumvention duties.

Second, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 266 TFEU by finding that the Contested Regulation could ‘cure’ a violation of essential procedural requirements in anti-dumping proceedings.

Third, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 266 TFEU and the principle of non-retroactivity by finding that the Contested Regulation could ‘cure’ the violation established in the judgment of 3 July 2019, Eurobolt (C-644/17, EU:C:2019:555).

Fourth, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 264 and 266 TFEU by finding that the Commission may usurp the competence of the Court of Justice, and, in doing so, violated Article 296 TFEU.

Fifth, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of effective judicial protection by finding that this principle does not require full repayment of duties in the present case.

Sixth, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2), Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU as well as the principle of good administration by finding that the Contested Regulation has a proper legal basis.

Seventh, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU by finding that the Contested Regulation could definitively prohibit repayment of the duties invalidated in the Eurobolt judgment.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 141, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21.

Appeal brought on 4 August 2022 by Amer Foz against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2022 in Case T-296/20, Foz v Council

(Case C-524/22 P)

(2022/C 398/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Amer Foz (represented by: L. Cloquet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	partly annul the judgement under appeal as far as it has dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment related to the 2021 maintaining acts, as defined therein;

—	as a consequence, annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the appellant;

—	as a consequence, annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the appellant;

—

as consequence, order the Council to withdraw the appellant’s name from the annexes to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (3) and to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (4); and

—	therefore, sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eight pleas in law:

First, a distortion of the evidence and of the factual circumstances in relation to the Pro-Justice Blog evidence.

Second, a distortion of the evidence and the factual circumstances in relation to the Syria Report evidence.

Third, a distortion of the evidence and of the factual circumstances in relation to the Reuters press article evidence.

Fourth, a distortion of the evidence and of the factual circumstances in relation the ASM International General Trading LLC evidence (the websites Arab News and Al Arabiya).

Fifth, an error in law in the form of a wrong application by the General Court of the Anbouba case-law (judgments of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C-630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, and of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C-605/13 P, EU:C:2015:248) and in particular of the criterion of the set of indicia that are sufficiently specific, precise and consistent.

Sixth, an error in law in the form of a wrong application by the General Court of Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 (5) in fine and of Article 15 of Regulation No 36/2012 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 (6).

Seventh, a distortion of the factual circumstances in relation to the absence of link between the appellant and Mr Samer Foz.

Eighth, an error in law in the form of a wrong application by the General Court of the rules governing the burden of the proof.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18.

(3)  OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14.

(4)  OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1.

(5)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 of 12 October 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 75).

(6)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 of 12 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 10 August 2022 by Antonio Del Valle Ruíz, Alejandra Pérez Mina, Alejandro Finkler Kudler, Alonso de Garay Gutiérrez, Arantzazu Del Valle Diharce, Arturo Grinberg Kreimerman, Carlos Ruíz Sacristán, Edmundo Del Valle Diharce, Elias Abadi Cherem, Enrique Rojas Blásquez, Eugenio Santiago Clariond Reyes, Fernando Ramos González de Castilla, Gerardo Madrazo Gómez, Germán Larrea Mota Velasco, Jacobo Troice Jalife, Jaime Abadi Cherem, Jorge Esteve Recolons, José Eduardo Del Valle Diharce, José Manuel Fierro Von Mohr, José María Casanueva Y Llaguno, Juan Pablo Del Valle Perochena, Julio Andrés Maza Casas, Luís de Garay Russ, Luis Francisco Suinaga Aguilár, María de Guadalupe Del Valle Perochena, Rogelio Barrenechea Cuenca, Xochitl Montero De Garay, Inmobiliaria Asturval, SA de CV, Bauhaus Partners Ltd, DGFam Fund, LP, Eureka Global Pte Ltd, Fideicomiso 70385-0 Bancomer (Antonio Cosío y Familia), Tanoak Ltd, GBM Capital Bursátil, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Fondo de Inversión Total, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Global, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, Grow Investments LP, Grupo Bursátil Mexicano, SA de CV, Casa de Bolsa, Hechos con Amor, SA de CV, Miura LP, Simple Investments LP, Terra Gamma Partners CV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 June 2022 in Case T-510/17, Del Valle Ruíz and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case C-539/22 P)

(2022/C 398/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Antonio Del Valle Ruíz, Alejandra Pérez Mina, Alejandro Finkler Kudler, Alonso de Garay Gutiérrez, Arantzazu Del Valle Diharce, Arturo Grinberg Kreimerman, Carlos Ruíz Sacristán, Edmundo Del Valle Diharce, Elias Abadi Cherem, Enrique Rojas Blásquez, Eugenio Santiago Clariond Reyes, Fernando Ramos González de Castilla, Gerardo Madrazo Gómez, Germán Larrea Mota Velasco, Jacobo Troice Jalife, Jaime Abadi Cherem, Jorge Esteve Recolons, José Eduardo Del Valle Diharce, José Manuel Fierro Von Mohr, José María Casanueva Y Llaguno, Juan Pablo Del Valle Perochena, Julio Andrés Maza Casas, Luís de Garay Russ, Luis Francisco Suinaga Aguilár, María de Guadalupe Del Valle Perochena, Rogelio Barrenechea Cuenca, Xochitl Montero De Garay, Inmobiliaria Asturval, SA de CV, Bauhaus Partners Ltd, DGFam Fund, LP, Eureka Global Pte Ltd, Fideicomiso 70385-0 Bancomer (Antonio Cosío y Familia), Tanoak Ltd, GBM Capital Bursátil, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Fondo de Inversión Total, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Global, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, Grow Investments LP, Grupo Bursátil Mexicano, SA de CV, Casa de Bolsa, Hechos con Amor, SA de CV, Miura LP, Simple Investments LP, Terra Gamma Partners CV (represented by: J. Pobjoy, Barrister-at-Law)

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 appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal;

—	refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, in line with the legal assessment of the Court of Justice; and

—	order the Council to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two pleas in law:

First, the General Court erred in (a) finding that the appellants were able to exercise their right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in circumstances where the respondents failed to provide key documents which were relied upon by the respondents and/or were materially relevant to the decisions subject to the application for annulment (Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Executive Session of the SRB of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA, and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. (1)), including the unredacted version of the SRB Decision, that the appellants are seeking to have annulled; and (b) failing to have regard to and/or act consistently with the requirements associated with the right to a fair hearing and equality of arms guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU Charter.

Second, the General Court erred in finding that in order to establish that the respondents had committed a manifest error of assessment, the appellants must adduce evidence sufficient to render the factual assessments adopted by the respondents ‘implausible’.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15.

Appeal brought on 1 September 2022 by Anglo Austrian AAB AG in liquidation against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-797/19, Anglo Austrian AAB AG in liquidation v European Central Bank

(Case C-579/22 P)

(2022/C 398/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anglo Austrian AAB AG in liquidation (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.	set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 June 2022 in Case T-797/19, Anglo Austrian AAB and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB,

2.	annul the decision of 14 November 2019 by which the ECB withdrew the appellant’s authorisation as a credit institution,

3.	in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union, in so far as the Court of Justice considers that it is not in a position to take a decision on the merits,

4.	order the ECB to pay the appellant’s costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal: the General Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and infringed EU law in the form of Article 263 TFEU by expressly adjudicating on points of contention relating to the interpretation and application of Austrian national law.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court should have found that the ECB was not competent,

a)	since the ECB does not have competence to take decisions under the legal framework on money laundering,

b)	since the ECB does not have authority to enforce national law,

c)	since the ECB has authority only regarding sanctions for enforcing directly applicable EU law, and

d)	since the supervision carried out by the ECB is limited to the combination of deposit taking and credit provision.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court’s finding that the conditions for the application of point 2 of Paragraph 31(3) of the FM-GWG (1) and of Article 67(1)(o) of the CRD IV (2) were met is based on a misinterpretation of the conditions laid down in those provisions and, in addition, on a misinterpretation of the national administrative and judicial decisions relied on by the General Court.

Fourth ground of appeal: the rejection of the pleas in law which are based on the finding that there was a ground for withdrawal of authorisation under Article 67(1)(d) of the CRD IV and which, according to the judgment under appeal, relate to considerations regarding the withdrawal of authorisation that were included merely for the sake of completeness, is vitiated by errors which are the same as the errors addressed in the context of the third ground of appeal.

Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to examine specifically the second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

Sixth ground of appeal: the rejection of the fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, is based on the legally incorrect finding that only alleged past breaches, and not the circumstances at the time of the withdrawal of authorisation, are relevant.

Seventh ground of appeal: the judgment under appeal is vitiated by procedural defects which adversely affect the appellant’s interests. In particular, the General Court failed to inform the appellant of a fundamental change in its legal position and thereafter to give the appellant an opportunity to comment on the factual and legal elements relevant to that change.

---

(1)  Austrian Federal Law on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing in financial markets.

(2)  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).

Appeal brought on 1 September 2022 by thyssenkrupp AG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-584/19, thyssenkrupp v Commission

(Case C-581/22 P)

(2022/C 398/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: thyssenkrupp AG (represented by: M. Klusmann, J. Ziebarth, O. Schley, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal;

—	annul the Commission’s decision C (2019) 4228 final (1) of 11 June 2019 in case M.8713 — Tata Steel/thyssenkrupp/JV;

—	in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant claims that the General Court did not perform a sufficient judicial review of its application for annulment by only performing a ‘light review’ of the pleas made. Furthermore, the General Court erred in law by not applying the correct substantive standards for defining relevant markets in merger cases and for finding a significant impediment of effective competition (‘SIEC’) to support a decision prohibiting a merger, by not applying applicable standards of proof, by unduly reversing the burden of proof, and by distorting or failing to consider the available evidence as well as by not adjudicating all pleas made, or in the alternative by failing to provide sufficient reasoning for its full dismissal of the initial application for annulment.

Fundamentally, the Appellant submits that in adjudicating the present case, the General Court should have observed its own precedent judgment in of 28 May 2020, CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission (T-399/16, EU:T:2020:217), in which it had set out a much more stringent standard of judicial review in merger cases than was applied here:

1.

With its first ground of appeal — which is divided into two pleas — the Appellant claims that the General Court failed to perform a sufficient own substantive review of the pleas made in the application for annulment by confining itself to just checking whether the Commission had dealt with particular points in the first place and by not engaging in an own review of whether the evidence used was reliable and correctly interpreted and whether the conclusions drawn by the Commission were correct and sufficiently shown in evidence also from the General Court’s own point of view. The Appellant claims that contrary to applicable precedent judgments of 10 July 2018, Bertelsmann et Sony Corporation of America / Impala (C-413/06 P, EU:C:2008:392) and 28 May 2020, CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission (T-399/16, EU:T:2020:217), the General Court failed to apply the correct substantive test for establishing a sufficient likelihood of a SIEC occurring post-merger on the product markets examined by the Commission.

2.

With its second ground of appeal — which is divided into four pleas — the Appellant claims that the General Court erred in law and distorted evidence by wrongly upholding too narrowly defined definitions of several relevant product markets for flat steel products (in particular for auto HDG and laminated steel for packaging), for which the Commission had found a SIEC to be likely to occur following the notified merger.

3.

With its third ground of appeal — which is divided into six pleas — the Appellant claims that the competitive assessments endorsed by the General Court regarding the assumed relevant markets for auto HDG and packaging steel are flawed due to the General Court wrongfully applying two mutually exclusive theories of harm in parallel (single dominance and non-coordinated effects in oligopolistic markets), by failing to define appropriate criteria for assuming Tata Steel to be an ‘important competitive force’ and regarding the assumed ‘closeness of competition’, by distorting the evidence regarding restraints posed by imports, by failing to find wrong HHI calculations to be relevant for the Commission’s decision making and by failing to fully adjudicate the pleas made in the application for annulment regarding these points.

4.

With its fourth ground of appeal the Appellant claims that the General Court distorted evidence and did not observe its rights of defence by misinterpreting the plea made regarding a new theory of harm put forward by the Commission in para 1095 of the contested decision without having offered a prior opportunity for the Appellant to be heard on this point and while applying a wrong substantive test with regard to hypothetical market behaviour of ArcelorMittal as a major competitor which was decisively taken into consideration by the General Court in dismissing the initial plea.

5.

With its fifth ground of appeal the Appellant claims that the General Court did not adjudicate on the seventh ground of the application for annulment due to having misconstrued the underlying plea which claimed that the Commission had distorted the evidence by basing statistical arguments on random and incomplete replies of third parties to requests for information, without ensuring absence of selection bias.

---

(1)  Summary of Commission Decision of 11 June 2019 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.8713 — Tata Steel/ThyssenKrupp/JV) (notified under document number C(2019) 4228); OJ 2021, C 24, p. 23.

Action brought on 8 September 2022 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-587/22)

(2022/C 398/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

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

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that, by failing to ensure that the agglomerations of Kéthely, Marcali, Zalaegerszeg, Keszthely, Zalakaros, Soltvadkert, Pilisvörösvár, Szécsény, Tolna, Köröm, Nagykőrös, Veresegyház, Kiskunhalas, Tököl, Szigetszentmiklós, Hódmezővásárhely, Szentendre, Mezőtúr, Békés, Dabas, Dunavarsány and Szentes are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water and are connected to them, or that individual systems or other appropriate systems achieve the same level of environmental protection as the collecting systems and treatment systems, and that urban waste water entering collecting systems is before discharge subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4, read in conjunction with Article 10, of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment. (1)

—

declare that, by failing to ensure, in respect of the agglomerations of Kéthely, Marcali, Zalaegerszeg, Keszthely and Zalakaros, that urban waste water is subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5, read in conjunction with Article 10, of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.

—

declare that, by failing to ensure the monitoring of discharges from urban waste water treatment plants in respect of the agglomerations of Kéthely, Marcali, Zalaegerszeg, Keszthely, Zalakaros, Soltvadkert, Pilisvörösvár, Szécsény, Tolna, Köröm, Nagykőrös, Veresegyház, Kiskunhalas, Tököl, Szigetszentmiklós, Hódmezővásárhely, Szentendre, Mezőtúr, Békés, Dabas, Dunavarsány and Szentes, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.

—	order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject matter of the case is Hungary’s inadequate implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment. The directive concerns the collection, treatment and discharge of urban waste water and the treatment and discharge of waste water from certain industrial sectors. The objective of the directive is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of the abovementioned waste water discharges in relation to certain industrial sectors and to agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 2 000.

In the Commission’s view, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive in relation to a total of 22 agglomerations (Kéthely, Marcali, Zalaegerszeg, Keszthely, Zalakaros, Soltvadkert, Pilisvörösvár, Szécsény, Tolna, Köröm, Nagykőrös, Veresegyház, Kiskunhalas, Tököl, Szigetszentmiklós, Szentendre Hódmezővásárhely, Mezőtúr, Békés, Dabas, Dunavarsány and Szentes) subject to the two intermediate time limits set in the Treaty of Accession (31 December 2008 and 31 December 2010).

The primary reason for the unlawful situation is the low rate of connection to the collecting systems already in place in those agglomerations. Second, there is the issue of the unjustified and excessive use, in those agglomerations, of individual systems or other appropriate systems that do not achieve the level of environmental protection laid down by the directive.

---

(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission

(Case T-642/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid implemented by Belgium in favour of JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 398/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Winckler, G. Babin and B. Cambier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz, C. Georgieva and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Clear Channel Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4466 final of 24 June 2019 on State aid SA.33078 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium in favour of JC Decaux Belgium Publicité.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders Clear Channel Belgium to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

Order of the General Court of 17 August 2022 — Batchelor v Commission

(Case T-85/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party independent of the applicant - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 398/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Hoorelbeke, lawyer and M. Healy, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Edward William Batchelor, seeks the annulment of European Commission Decision C(2017) 8430 final of 5 December 2017 in so far as it refused him access to the ethics declaration of a director of the institution and indicated that it did not hold any other document falling within the scope of his application for access to documents (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	Mr Edward William Batchelor is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the General Court of 2 August 2022 — Kakuzo v EUIPO — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (Kakuzo)

(Case T-592/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 398/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kakuzo GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and D. Mienert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Rauch Fruchtsäfte GmbH (Rankweil, Austria)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 July 2021 (Case R 356/2021-5)

Operative part of the order

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

2.	Kakuzo GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

Order of the General Court of 2 August 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — SMB Swisspour (PUMA)

(Case T-622/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 398/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SMB Swisspour GmbH (Wildau, Germany)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 July 2021 (Case R 2493/2019-1).

Operative part of the order

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

2.	Puma SE shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

Order of the General Court of 1 August 2022 — Preventicus v EUIPO (NIGHTWATCH)

(Case T-742/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 398/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Preventicus GmbH (Jena, Germany) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Preventicus GmbH, seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 September 2021 (Case R 1241/2020-4).

Operative part of the order

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

2.	The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Preventicus GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

Order of the General Court of 29 July 2022 — Santos v EUIPO (Shape of a citrus press)

(Case T-51/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a citrus press - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Decision adopted following the revocation of an earlier decision - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 398/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Santos (Vaulx-en-Velin, France) (represented by: C. Bey, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 November 2021 (Case R 281/2020-1).

Operative part of the order

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

2.	Santos is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 August 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-269/22 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Marketing authorisation for Dimethyl fumarate Polpharma - dimethyl fumarate - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 398/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3253 final of 13 May 2022 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Dimethyl fumarate Polpharma — dimethyl fumarate’ as a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 August 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-278/22 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Marketing authorisation for Dimethyl fumarate Neuraxpharm - dimethyl fumarate - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 398/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3254 final of 13 May 2022 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Dimethyl fumarate Neuraxpharm — dimethyl fumarate’ as a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 August 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-279/22 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Marketing authorisation for Dimethyl fumarate Mylan - dimethyl fumarate - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 398/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3252 final of 13 May 2022 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Dimethyl fumarate Mylan — dimethyl fumarate’ as a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 21 July 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-458/22)

(2022/C 398/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 21 December 2021 C(2021) 9941 final on the State aid SA.60165 (2021/C, ex 2021/N) which Portugal is planning to implement for TAP SGPS; (1) and

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the eligibility of TAP is not established.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the demonstration of the risk of disruption of an important service and the systemic role of TAP.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching and is apt to restore TAP’s long-term viability without relying on further State aid within a reasonable period of time.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the need for State intervention and its incentive effect (i.e. failure to provide a comparison with a credible alternative scenario not involving State aid and to establish that TAP has exhausted all market options).

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the appropriateness of the aid.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the proportionality of the aid.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision does not adequately review the negative effects of the aid.

8.	Eighth plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment.

9.	Ninth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 139, p. 19.

Action brought on 1 August 2022 — Imasa, Ingeniería y Proyectos v Commission and Others

(Case T-474/22)

(2022/C 398/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Imasa, Ingeniería y Proyectos, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: J. Álvarez González, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, European Central Bank, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability for the unlawful and negligent conduct of the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board and the European Central Bank in respect of the facts set out in the application;

—	order the European Union to compensate the applicant in the amount of EUR 186 195,66, corresponding to the calculations and the quantification set out in the expert report annexed to the application, plus statutory interest, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea, alleging that the Single Resolution Board acted unlawfully by making alarmist public statements and engaging in actions (in particular leaks) constituting irresponsible conduct, which led to the immediate collapse in the share price of Banco Popular Español, S.A. and precipitated its resolution.

2.

Second plea, alleging that the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission acted negligently by adopting and approving the resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A. without having verified and confirmed, in accordance with EU legislation, whether the requirements and preconditions for applying that resolution mechanism had been met and by failing — once that mechanism was agreed upon — to comply with EU legislation on the resolution procedure or with the rights of the shareholders and/or holders of securities in the bank.

3.	Third plea, alleging that the European Central Bank failed to exercise care in monitoring, supervising, forecasting, regulating and establishing the necessary mechanisms to ensure the liquidity of Banco Popular Español, S.A. and to prevent its resolution.

Action brought on 1 August 2022 — Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa v Commission and Others

(Case T-475/22)

(2022/C 398/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa (La Coruña, Spain) (represented by: B. Fernández García, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, European Central Bank, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability for the unlawful and negligent conduct of the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board and the European Central Bank in respect of the facts set out in the application;

—	order the European Union to compensate the applicant in the amount of EUR 47 513 972,73, corresponding to the calculations and the quantification set out in the expert report annexed to the application, plus statutory interest, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea, alleging that the Single Resolution Board acted unlawfully by making alarmist public statements and engaging in actions (in particular leaks) constituting irresponsible conduct, which led to the immediate collapse in the share price of Banco Popular Español, S.A. and precipitated its resolution.

2.

Second plea, alleging that the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission acted negligently by adopting and approving the resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A. without having verified and confirmed, in accordance with EU legislation, whether the requirements and preconditions for applying that resolution mechanism had been met and by failing — once that mechanism was agreed upon — to comply with EU legislation on the resolution procedure or with the rights of the shareholders and/or holders of securities in the bank.

3.	Third plea, alleging that the European Central Bank failed to exercise care in monitoring, supervising, forecasting, regulating and establishing the necessary mechanisms to ensure the liquidity of Banco Popular Español, S.A. and to prevent its resolution.

Action brought on 1 August 2022 — Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Others

(Case T-477/22)

(2022/C 398/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Calatrava Real State 2015, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Fernández García, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, European Central Bank, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability for the unlawful and negligent conduct of the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board and the European Central Bank in respect of the facts set out in the application;

—	order the European Union to compensate the applicant in the amount of EUR 713 320,65, corresponding to the calculations and the quantification set out in the expert report annexed to the application, plus statutory interest, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea, alleging that the Single Resolution Board acted unlawfully by making alarmist public statements and engaging in actions (in particular leaks) constituting irresponsible conduct, which led to the immediate collapse in the share price of Banco Popular Español, S.A. and precipitated its resolution.

2.

Second plea, alleging that the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission acted negligently by adopting and approving the resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A. without having verified and confirmed, in accordance with EU legislation, whether the requirements and preconditions for applying that resolution mechanism had been met and by failing — once that mechanism was agreed upon — to comply with EU legislation on the resolution procedure or with the rights of the shareholders and/or holders of securities in the bank.

3.	Third plea, alleging that the European Central Bank failed to exercise care in monitoring, supervising, forecasting, regulating and establishing the necessary mechanisms to ensure the liquidity of Banco Popular Español, S.A. and to prevent its resolution.

Action brought on 16 August 2022 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-512/22)

(2022/C 398/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: P. Barros da Costa, H. Almeida, N. Domingues and G. Gomes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul 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) (notified under document C(2022) 3543), in so far as it excludes from EU financing the amount of EUR 117 066 097,40 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with cross-compliance, in the financial years for the 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 campaigns;

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)

First plea, alleging error in the presumptions of fact and law, in that the Commission found that the Portuguese Government should have applied the geo-spatial application system prior to the 2015 campaign — infringement of Article 17 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/14 (1) and of Article 72(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) in so far as the Commission started from a false premiss and erred in law with regard to the presumptions of fact and law when it found that the Portuguese authorities had failed duly to assess the amounts paid in campaign years 2016 to 2019, thereby creating a risk for the fund.

(2)

Second plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality understood as the principle of adequacy and the principle of necessity or the debit principle in the ‘Calculation of the financial correction’, and breach of the principle of sincere cooperation — infringement of Article 5 and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in that the Commission applied a flat-rate correction which exceeds the objectives referred to by the legislation, and failed to take into account the substantiated calculation, submitted by the national authorities, which was carried out and established in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines.

(3)

Third plea, alleging error of law and contradictory reasoning, and breach of the principle of proportionality — infringement of Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 5 TEU, in that the national authorities identified the payments affected by the alleged irregularity as being those made in relation to the financial years 2016 and 2017, once the Omnibus Regulation entered into force on 1 January 2018, and that, to that extent, the total amount of EUR 31 843 249,44 proposed by the national authorities is appreciably different to the value of the financial correction applied by the Commission.

(4)

Fourth plea, alleging inadequate reasoning — infringement of the ratio legis and objective of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014, (3) in so far as the communication from the Commission is vitiated by an imprecise statement of reasons in so far as concerns the population of the 12 % and 66 % of the surface area eligible for standard on-the-spot checks and for remote-sensing checks, by means of which the data relating to the risk for the fund and the corresponding financial correction applicable were extrapolated.

(5)

Fifth plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality — infringement of Article 5 TEU, in so far as the amount determined by the Commission in respect of the calculation of the risk to the funds, in so far as concerns campaign years 2016 to 2019, is excessive, with the result that the amounts excluded from financing are disproportionate.

---

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

(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.

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro.

Action brought on 25 August 2022 — Deutsche Glasfaser Wholesale v EUIPO — O2 Worldwide (brightblue)

(Case T-516/22)

(2022/C 398/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Glasfaser Wholesale GmbH (Borken, Germany) (represented by: A. Doepner-Thiele and U. Kelp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Worldwide Ltd (Cambridge, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark brightblue — Application for registration No 17 913 265

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2022 in Case R 0024/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 95(1) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 26 August 2022 — GKP v EUIPO — Cristalfarma (TIARA RUBIS)

(Case T-518/22)

(2022/C 398/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: GKP GmbH (Ehrenhausen an der Weinstraße, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cristalfarma Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TIARA RUBIS — Application for registration No 18 205 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2022 in Case R 1878/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested decision;

—	uphold in its entirety paragraph 1 of the operative part of the contested decision; and

—	order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs of the earlier stages of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of certain services in class 35;

—	Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of goods in class 5 and certain services.

Action brought on 29 August 2022 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)

(Case T-519/22)

(2022/C 398/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and A.-C. Salger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FITNESS — European Union trade mark No 2 470 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 894/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 70 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

—	Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 70 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — NZ v Commission

(Case T-535/22)

(2022/C 398/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	initiate the measures of organisation of procedure requested in paragraph 30 [of the application] and a measure aimed at clarifying the questions raised in paragraphs 42, 43 and 59 [of the application]; and, on conclusion of the proceedings,

—	annul the contested decisions; as well as, in any case,

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against the decision of the European Commission of 10 February 2022, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 6 October 2021, NZ v Commission (T-668/20, not published, EU:T:2021:667), confirming the decision to not enter her name on the reserve list of internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons, the misuse of powers, the infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in particular by the defendant’s refusal to initiate measures which allow for actual compliance with the annulling judgment delivered previously by the Court.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the competition notice, in particular since the selection board has applied very different coefficients to the two tests comprising the oral examination.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of equal treatment due to fluctuations in the composition of the selection board.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the rules which govern the functioning of the selection boards and the selection committees, namely: — selection board composed only of alternate members in the vast majority of formations having assessed the candidates, including the applicant; — the identical nature of the questions posed to the candidates during the tests; — the lack of transparency and of coherence in the rules used for scoring candidates; — fluctuation in the selection board’s composition.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union due to the infringement set out in the second plea.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the duty of care.

Action brought on 2 September 2022 — France v SRB

(Case T-540/22)

(2022/C 398/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: T. Stehelin, J.-L. Carré and E. Timmermans, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Decision 3/2021 of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board of 8 June 2022;

—	order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Decision 3/2021 of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 8 June 2022 by which the Appeal Panel upholds the decision of the SRB not to grant to the banking group concerned the exemption from the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities applied on an individual basis, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB correctly interpreted and applied Article 12h of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 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 255, p 1) and that it remained within the limits of its discretion.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB had not breached the principle of legal certainty.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB had satisfied its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

Order of the General Court of 31 August 2022 — Virbac v Commission

(Case T-138/21) (1)

(2022/C 398/44)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

Order of the General Court of 29 August 2022 — Mellish v Commission

(Case T-176/22) (1)

(2022/C 398/45)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.