		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 15

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 66 16 January 2023

Contents		page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2023/C 15/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2023/C 15/02	Case C-147/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Abacus Medicine A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — EU trade mark — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 9(2) — Rights conferred by a mark — Article 15 — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel import of medicinal products — Repackaging of the product bearing the mark — New outer packaging — Opposition by the proprietor of the mark — Artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 47a — Safety features — Replacement — Equivalent features — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 — Article 3(2) — Anti-tampering device — Unique identifier)	2
2023/C 15/03	Case C-204/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v kohlpharma GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Trade marks — Directive (EU) 2015/2436 — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks — Article 10(2) — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Article 15 — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel import of medicinal products — Repackaging of the product bearing the mark — New outer packaging — Opposition by the proprietor of the mark — Artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 47a — Safety features — Replacement — Equivalent features — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 — Article 3(2) — Anti-tampering device — Unique identifier)	3
2023/C 15/04	Case C-224/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Danmark ApS v Abacus Medicine A/S, and Novartis AG v Abacus Medicine A/S, and Novartis AG v Abacus Medicine A/S, and Novartis AG v Paranova Danmark A/S, and H. Lundbeck A/S v Paranova Danmark A/S, and MSD Danmark ApS, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v 2CARE4 ApS, and Ferring Lægemidler A/S v Paranova Danmark A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Intellectual property — Trade marks — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — EU trade mark — Article 9(2) — Article 15 — Directive (EU) 2015/2436 — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks — Article 10(2) — Article 15 — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel import of medicinal products — Repackaging of the product bearing the mark — New outer packaging — Replacement of the trade mark appearing on the original outer packaging by another product name — Reaffixing of the trade mark of the proprietor specific to the product, to the exclusion of the other distinctive marks or signs appearing on that original outer packaging — Opposition by the proprietor of the mark — Artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 47a — Safety features — Replacement — Equivalent features — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 — Article 3(2) — Anti-tampering device)	4
2023/C 15/05	Joined Cases C-253/20 and C-254/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Impexeco NV v Novartis AG (C-253/20), PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV (C-254/20) (References for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Intellectual property — Trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9(2) — Article 13 — Directive 2008/95 — Article 5(1) — Article 7 — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel imports of medicinal products — Reference medicinal product and generic medicinal product — Economically linked undertakings — Repackaging of the generic medicinal product — New outer packaging — Affixing the trade mark of the reference medicinal product — Opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark — Artificial partitioning of the markets between the Member States)	6
2023/C 15/06	Joined Cases C-331/20 P and C-343/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2022 — Volotea SA (C-331/20 P), easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (C-343/20 P) v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — European Commission decision on compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations — Existence of unlawful State aid incompatible with the internal market, granted by the Italian Republic to airlines through airport operators — Concept of State aid — Proof of the existence of an advantage — Determination of the amount — Market economy operator principle — Applicability and application — Test of the private acquirer of goods or services — Conditions — Burden of proof)	7
2023/C 15/07	Case C-562/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — SIA Rodl & Partner v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Point 3(b) of Annex III — Risk-based approach — Risk assessment carried out by obliged entities — Identification of risks by Member States and obliged entities — Customer due diligence measures — Enhanced due diligence measures — High-corruption-risk third countries — Article 13(1)(c) and (d) — Evidence and documentation requirements for obliged entities — Article 14(5) — Ongoing monitoring of customers by obliged entities — Publication of decisions imposing a sanction)	8
2023/C 15/08	Case C-607/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 26(1)(b) — Supply of services free of charge — Award of retail vouchers free of charge to staff of the taxable person’s business as part of an employee recognition and reward scheme — Transactions treated as supplies of services for consideration — Scope — Principle of fiscal neutrality)	9
2023/C 15/09	Case C-646/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht v TB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Divorce — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 2(4) and Article 21 — Concept of judgment — Recognition, in a Member State, of the dissolution of a marriage agreed in an agreement between spouses and pronounced by a civil registrar of another Member State — Criterion for determining the existence of a judgment)	10
2023/C 15/10	Case C-54/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Antea Polska S.A., Pectore-Eco sp. z o.o., Instytut Ochrony Środowiska — Państwowy Instytut Badawczy v Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Principles of awarding contracts — Article 18 — Transparency — Article 21 — Confidentiality — Insertion of those principles in the national legislation — Right of access to the essential content of the information provided by tenderers concerning their experience and references, concerning the persons proposed to carry out the contract and concerning the design of the proposed projects and the manner of performance — Article 67 — Contract award criteria — Criteria relating to the quality of the proposed work or services — Requirement of precision — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) and (3) — Right to an effective remedy — Remedy in the event of infringement of that right on account of the refusal to grant access to non-confidential information)	11
2023/C 15/11	Case C-175/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Harman International Industries Inc. v AB SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Intellectual property — EU trade mark — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 15 — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Placing on the market within the European Economic Area (EEA) — Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark — Place of first marketing of products by the proprietor of the trade mark or with its consent — Proof — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effective judicial protection — Operative part of judicial decisions not identifying the products covered — Difficulties in implementation — Restricted scope of action before the competent court for enforcement — Fair trial — Rights of the defence — Principle of the equality of arms)	12
2023/C 15/12	Case C-230/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 2(f) — Article 10(3)(a) — Concept of unaccompanied minor — Right to family reunification — Refugee minor who is married at the time of her entry into the territory of a Member State — Child marriage not recognised in that Member State — Cohabitation with the spouse lawfully residing in that Member State)	13
2023/C 15/13	Case C-238/21: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Porr Bau GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Graz-Umgebung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Directive 2008/98/EC — Point 1 of Article 3 — Article 5(1) — Article 6(1) — Excavated materials — Concepts of waste and of by-product — Cessation of waste status)	14
2023/C 15/14	Case C-243/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — TOYA sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Telecommunications — Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) — Article 8(3) — Directive 2014/61/EU — Articles 1(3), 1(4) and 3(5) — Power of the national regulatory authority to impose ex ante regulatory conditions relating to access to the physical infrastructure of a network operator not having significant market power — Absence of a dispute relating to access)	15
2023/C 15/15	Case C-304/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VT v Ministero dell’Interno and Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation fixing a maximum age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of police commissioners — Justification)	16
2023/C 15/16	Case C-350/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings initiated by the Spetsializirana prokuratura (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector — Confidentiality of communications — Providers of electronic communications services — General and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data for a period of six months — Combating serious crime — Access to the retained data — Informing the data subjects — Right to a remedy — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 15(1) and (2) — Directive (EU) 2016/680 — Articles 13 and 54 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8, 11 and 47 and Article 52(1))	16
2023/C 15/17	Case C-443/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Avicarvil Farms SRL v Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Vâlcea (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy (CAP) — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Article 40 — National rural development programme 2007-2013 — Animal welfare payments — Calculation errors — Reductions in payments by the national authorities — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of legal certainty)	17
2023/C 15/18	Case C-578/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 4 — Member State legislation on business property taxation — Methods for valuation of property used to calculate the basis of assessment of the rate payable — Complaint from wind farm operators — Allegation of an under-assessment of the basis of assessment for the business rate payable by fossil fuel electricity producers and, consequently, of a level of business rate of those electricity generators lower than that of other electricity producers due to the choice of valuation method used — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision finding that there is no State aid — No economic and selective advantage — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Concept of serious difficulties — Extent of the European Commission’s investigative duty — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to conduct the investigation procedure diligently and impartially — Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union)	18
2023/C 15/19	Case C-113/21 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2022 — Maen Haikal v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against leading businesspersons operating in Syria — Lists of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Proof that the inclusion of the appellant’s name on those lists is well founded — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)	19
2023/C 15/20	Case C-569/21: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri v PF (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation fixing a maximum age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of technical psychologist commissioners — Justification)	19
2023/C 15/21	Case C-56/22: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — PL v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to set out the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)	20
2023/C 15/22	Case C-302/22: Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 3 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Eilenburg — Germany) — YS, RW v Freebird Airlines Europe Ltd. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation for air passengers in the event of long delays to flights — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Extraordinary circumstances — Collision between an aircraft and birds — Emergency braking manoeuvre leading to damage to the tyres of that aircraft)	21
2023/C 15/23	Case C-561/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2021 — GP and BG v Banco Santander, S. A.	21
2023/C 15/24	Case C-337/22 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2022 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2022 in Case T-281/21, Nowhere v EUIPO	22
2023/C 15/25	Case C-608/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2022 — AH	23
2023/C 15/26	Case C-609/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2022 — FN	24
2023/C 15/27	Case C-624/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 September 2022 — Société BP France v Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique	25
2023/C 15/28	Case C-626/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 3 October 2022 — C. Z., M. C., S. P. and Others v Ilva SpA (in extraordinary administration), Acciaierie d’Italia Holding SpA, Acciaierie d’Italia SpA	26
2023/C 15/29	Case C-627/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 4 October 2022 — AB v Finanzamt Köln-Süd	27
2023/C 15/30	Case C-630/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2022 — JK v Kirchliches Krankenhaus	28
2023/C 15/31	Case C-659/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2022 — RK v Ministerstvo zdravotnictví	29
2023/C 15/32	Case C-694/22: Action brought on 10 November 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Malta	29
2023/C 15/33	Case C-697/22 P: Appeal brought on 11 November 2022 by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-603/19 Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy v European Commission	30
2023/C 15/34	Case C-710/22 P: Appeal brought on 17 November 2022 by JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-642/19, JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission	31
2023/C 15/35	Joined Cases C-148/20 to C-150/20: Order of the President of the Court of 9 August 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — AC (C-148/20), DF (C-149/20), BD (C-150/20) v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, interested party: Bundeskriminalamt (C-150/20)	32
2023/C 15/36	Joined Cases C-215/20 and C-222/20: Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — JV (C-215/20), OC (C-222/20) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland	32
2023/C 15/37	Case C-486/20: Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — proceedings brought by Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije, intervening parties: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije, Vlada Republike Slovenije	32
2023/C 15/38	Case C-448/21: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 7 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível — Portugal) — Portugália — Administração de Patrimónios, SGPS, SA v Banco BPI	32
2023/C 15/39	Case C-652/21: Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 2 de León — Spain) — ACNC v Unicaja Banco, SA	33
2023/C 15/40	Case C-789/21: Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria	33
2023/C 15/41	Case C-191/22: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — ME v État belge	33
2023/C 15/42	Case C-193/22: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — TR, UQ v FTI Touristik GmbH	33
2023/C 15/43	Case C-214/22: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2022 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg	34
2023/C 15/44	Case C-215/22: Order of the President of the Court of 13 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Research Consorzio Stabile Scarl, acting on its own account and as agent of the association of undertakings to be constituted (Research-Cisa), C.I.S.A. SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the same association (Research-Cisa), Debar Costruzioni SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the association to be constituted with Consorzio Stabile COM Scarl, C.N. Costruzioni Generali SpA and Edil.Co. Srl, Invitalia — Agenzia Nazionale per l’Attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa v Invitalia — Agenzia Nazionale per l’Attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa, Debar Costruzioni SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the association to be constituted with Consorzio Stabile COM Scarl, C.N. Costruzioni Generali SpA and Edil.Co. Srl, Research Consorzio Stabile Scarl, acting on its own account and as agent of the association of undertakings to be constituted (Research-Cisa), C.I.S.A. SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the same association (Research-Cisa), intervening party: Invitalia — Agenzia Nazionale per l’Attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa	34
	General Court
2023/C 15/45	Case T-246/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Cambodia and CRF v Commission (Safeguard measures — Rice market — Imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia and Myanmar/Burma — Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 — Concept of Union producers — Concept of like or directly competing products — Serious difficulties — Rights of the defence — Essential facts and considerations — Manifest errors of assessment)	35
2023/C 15/46	Case T-111/21: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Ryanair v Commission (Croatia Airlines; COVID-19) (State aid — Croatian air transport market — Aid granted by Croatia to an airline in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic — Direct grant — Decision not to raise any objections — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Serious difficulties — Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence — Equal treatment — Freedom of establishment — Free provision of services — Assessment of the damage — Obligation to state reasons)	36
2023/C 15/47	Case T-158/21: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe — Commission communication setting out the reasons for not adopting the proposals for legal acts contained in the European citizens’ initiative — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Manifest error of assessment)	36
2023/C 15/48	Case T-164/21: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — QM v Europol (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period — Interests of the service — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)	37
2023/C 15/49	Case T-596/21: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Société Elmar Wolf v EUIPO — Fuxtec (Representation of the head of an animal) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a head — Earlier national figurative mark representing the head of a canine — Earlier international registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing the head of a canine — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion)	38
2023/C 15/50	Case T-610/21: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Heinze (K K WATER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark K K WATER — Earlier EU figurative mark K — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	39
2023/C 15/51	Case T-639/21: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — CB v EUIPO — China Construction Bank (CCB) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark CCB — Earlier EU figurative mark CB — Earlier international registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CB — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)	39
2023/C 15/52	Case T-779/21: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Financiere Batteur v EUIPO — Leno Beauty (by L.e.n.o beauty) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark by L.e.n.o beauty — Earlier national word mark LAINO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	40
2023/C 15/53	Case T-407/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — PB v Commission (Interim relief — Public service contracts — Irregularities in the contract award procedure — Recovery of amounts unduly paid — Enforceable decision — Application for interim measures — Urgency — Prima facie case — Balance of interests)	41
2023/C 15/54	Case T-603/21: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2022 — WO v European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Civil service — Appointment of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office — Candidates nominated by [confidential] — Refusal by the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to appoint the applicant — No dispute between the Union and one of its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations and the CEOS — Article 270 TFEU — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)	41
2023/C 15/55	Case T-55/22: Order of the General Court of 17 October 2022 — Swords v Commission and ECDC (Action for annulment — Public health — Measures introduced in the European Union in the fight against the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic — Risk assessment reports drawn up by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) — Acts not open to challenge — European Commission communication and coordinated approach published on the basis of the risk assessment reports drawn up by the ECDC — Plea of illegality — Inadmissibility)	42
2023/C 15/56	Case T-624/22: Action brought on 6 October 2022 — RS v EIB	43
2023/C 15/57	Case T-671/22: Action brought on 7 November 2022 — Vima World v Commission	44
2023/C 15/58	Case T-677/22: Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Portal Golf Gestión v EUIPO — Augusta National (imaster.golf)	45
2023/C 15/59	Case T-679/22: Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Shaman Spirits/EUIPO — Global Drinks Finland (LAPLANDIA Land of purity et al.)	45
2023/C 15/60	Case T-706/22: Action brought on 16 November 2022 — Nicoventures Trading and Others v Commission	46
2023/C 15/61	Case T-719/22: Action brought on 8 November 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Herno (HERZO)	47
2023/C 15/62	Case T-87/22: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — Hahn Rechtsanwälte v Commission	48
2023/C 15/63	Case T-160/22: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — 1906 Collins v EUIPO — Peace United (bâoli BEACH)	48

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/1

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

(2023/C 15/01)

Last publication

Past publications

These texts are available on:

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

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Abacus Medicine A/S

(Case C-147/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - EU trade mark - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 9(2) - Rights conferred by a mark - Article 15 - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Parallel import of medicinal products - Repackaging of the product bearing the mark - New outer packaging - Opposition by the proprietor of the mark - Artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 47a - Safety features - Replacement - Equivalent features - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 - Article 3(2) - Anti-tampering device - Unique identifier)

(2023/C 15/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novartis Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Abacus Medicine A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2) and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark

must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of an EU trade mark is not entitled to oppose the marketing by a parallel importer of a repackaged medicinal product in a new outer packaging bearing that mark, where the replacement of the anti-tampering device of the original outer packaging of that medicinal product carried out in accordance with Article 47a(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, would leave visible traces of opening on that packaging and where those traces would cause such strong resistance on the part of a significant proportion of consumers on the market of the Member State of importation or on a substantial part of that market to medicinal products repackaged in that way that it would constitute an obstacle to effective access to that market, which must be established on a case-by-case basis.

Article 5(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 of 2 October 2015 supplementing Directive 2001/83

must be interpreted as not precluding the barcode containing the unique identifier referred to in Article 3(2)(a) of that delegated regulation from being affixed to the outer packaging of the medicinal product by means of an adhesive label, provided that that label cannot be removed without being damaged and that, in particular, the barcode remains perfectly readable throughout the supply chain and throughout the entire period referred to in Article 6 of that delegated regulation.

(1) OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v kohlpharma GmbH

(Case C-204/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Trade marks - Directive (EU) 2015/2436 - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks - Article 10(2) - Rights conferred by a trade mark - Article 15 - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Parallel import of medicinal products - Repackaging of the product bearing the mark - New outer packaging - Opposition by the proprietor of the mark - Artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 47a - Safety features - Replacement - Equivalent features - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 - Article 3(2) - Anti-tampering device - Unique identifier)

(2023/C 15/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH

Defendant: kohlpharma GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 47a of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012,

must be interpreted as meaning that provided that all the requirements referred to in that article are satisfied, repackaging in new packaging and relabelling of medicinal products imported in parallel constitute equivalent forms of repackaging as regards the efficacy of the safety features referred to in Article 54(o) of that directive, as amended by Directive 2012/26, without one prevailing over the other.

Article 10(2) and Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks

must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed where it is objectively possible to relabel the medicinal product concerned in compliance with the requirements provided for in Article 47a of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2012/26, and where the medicinal product thus relabelled could actually access the market of the Member State of importation.

Article 10(2) and Article 15 of Directive 2015/2436

must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed, where the visible traces of opening of the original outer packaging which, where applicable, would result from relabelling of that medicinal product would be clearly attributable to the repackaging thus carried out by that parallel importer, unless those traces give rise, on the market of the Member State of importation or on a significant part of that market, to such strong resistance on the part of a significant proportion of consumers to medicinal products repackaged in that way as to constitute a barrier to effective access to that market, which must be established on a case-by-case basis.

(1) OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Danmark ApS v Abacus Medicine A/S, and Novartis AG v Abacus Medicine A/S, and Novartis AG v Abacus Medicine A/S, and Novartis AG v Paranova Danmark A/S, and H. Lundbeck A/S v Paranova Danmark A/S, and MSD Danmark ApS, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v 2CARE4 ApS, and Ferring Lægemidler A/S v Paranova Danmark A/S

(Case C-224/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Intellectual property - Trade marks - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - EU trade mark - Article 9(2) - Article 15 - Directive (EU) 2015/2436 - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks - Article 10(2) - Article 15 - Rights conferred by a trade mark - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Parallel import of medicinal products - Repackaging of the product bearing the mark - New outer packaging - Replacement of the trade mark appearing on the original outer packaging by another product name - Reaffixing of the trade mark of the proprietor specific to the product, to the exclusion of the other distinctive marks or signs appearing on that original outer packaging - Opposition by the proprietor of the mark - Artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 47a - Safety features - Replacement - Equivalent features - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 - Article 3(2) - Anti-tampering device)

(2023/C 15/04)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Sø- og Handelsretten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Danmark ApS, Novartis AG, H. Lundbeck A/S, Ferring Lægemidler A/S

Defendants: Abacus Medicine A/S, Paranova Danmark A/S, 2CARE4 ApS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2) and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, and Article 10(2) and Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in conjunction with Articles 34 and 36 TFEU,

must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed where the replacement of the anti-tampering device of the original outer packaging, carried out in accordance with Article 47a(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, would leave visible or tangible traces of that original outer packaging having been opened, provided that:

—	there is no doubt that those traces of opening are attributable to the repackaging of that medicinal product by that parallel importer and

—	those traces do not cause, on the market of the Member State of importation or on a substantial part of it, such strong resistance from a significant proportion of consumers to the medicinal products repackaged in that way that it would constitute a barrier to effective access to that market.

Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2012/26, and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 of 2 October 2015 supplementing Directive 2001/83,

must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring that medicinal products imported in parallel must, in principle, be repackaged in new packaging and that recourse may be had to relabelling and to the affixing of new safety features to the original outer packaging of those medicinal products only on application and in exceptional circumstances, such as, inter alia, a risk of disruption to the supply of the medicinal product concerned.

Article 9(2) and Article 15 of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 10(2) and Article 15 of Directive 2015/2436, read in conjunction with Articles 34 and 36 TFEU,

must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State rule which requires that medicinal products imported in parallel must, in principle, be repackaged in new packaging and that recourse may be had to relabelling and to the affixing of new safety features to the original outer packaging of those medicinal products only on application and in exceptional circumstances does not impede the exercise by a trade mark proprietor of his or her right to oppose the marketing by a parallel importer of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that mark is affixed.

Article 9(2) and Article 15(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 10(2) and Article 15(2) of Directive 2015/2436, read in conjunction with Articles 34 and 36 TFEU,

must be interpreted as meaning that the first of the five conditions set out in paragraph 79 of the judgment of 11 July 1996, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others (C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, EU:C:1996:282) — according to which the proprietor of a trade mark may legitimately oppose the further marketing in a Member State of a medicinal product bearing that mark and imported from another Member State, where the importer of that medicinal product has repackaged that product and reaffixed that trade mark to the packaging and where such repackaging of that medicinal product in new outer packaging is not objectively necessary for the purposes of its being marketed in the Member State of importation — must be satisfied where the trade mark which appeared on the original outer packaging of the medicinal product concerned has been replaced by a different product name on the new outer packaging of that medicinal product, provided that the immediate packaging of that product bears that trade mark and/or that new outer packaging refers to that mark.

Article 9(2) and Article 15(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 10(2) and Article 15(2) of Directive 2015/2436

must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark may oppose the marketing in a Member State by a parallel importer of a medicinal product imported from another Member State which that importer has repackaged in new outer packaging to which he or she has reaffixed the trade mark of the proprietor specific to that product, but not the other trade marks and/or other distinctive signs which appeared on the original outer packaging of that medicinal product, where the presentation of that new outer packaging is in fact liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark or where that presentation does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive consumers, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether that medicinal product originates from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically linked to him or her or, on the contrary, originates from a third party, thus adversely affecting the function of indicating the origin of the mark.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Impexeco NV v Novartis AG (C-253/20), PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV (C-254/20)

(Joined Cases C-253/20 and C-254/20) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Intellectual property - Trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(2) - Article 13 - Directive 2008/95 - Article 5(1) - Article 7 - Rights conferred by a trade mark - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Parallel imports of medicinal products - Reference medicinal product and generic medicinal product - Economically linked undertakings - Repackaging of the generic medicinal product - New outer packaging - Affixing the trade mark of the reference medicinal product - Opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark - Artificial partitioning of the markets between the Member States)

(2023/C 15/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Impexeco NV (C-253/20), PI Pharma NV (C-254/20)

Defendants: Novartis AG (C-253/20), Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV (C-254/20)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2) and Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015, and Article 5(1) and Article 7 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in the light of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU,

must be interpreted as meaning that

the proprietor of the trade mark of a reference medicinal product and the trade mark of a generic medicinal product may oppose the placing on the market of a Member State, by a parallel importer, of that generic medicinal product imported from another Member State, where that medicinal product has been repackaged in new outer packaging to which the trade mark of the corresponding reference medicinal product has been affixed, unless, first, the two medicinal products are identical in all respects and, second, the replacement of the trade mark satisfies the conditions laid down in paragraph 79 of the judgment of 11 July 1996, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others (C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, EU:C:1996:282); in paragraph 32 of the judgment of 26 April 2007, Boehringer Ingelheim and Others (C-348/04, EU:C:2007:249); and in paragraph 28 of the judgment of 17 May 2018, Junek Europ-Vertrieb (C-642/16, EU:C:2018:322).

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2022 — Volotea SA (C-331/20 P), easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (C-343/20 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-331/20 P and C-343/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - European Commission decision on compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations - Existence of unlawful State aid incompatible with the internal market, granted by the Italian Republic to airlines through airport operators - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Proof of the existence of an advantage - Determination of the amount - Market economy operator principle - Applicability and application - Test of the private acquirer of goods or services - Conditions - Burden of proof)

(2023/C 15/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Volotea SA (represented by M. Carpagnano, avvocato, and M. Nordmann, Rechtsanwalt), easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (represented by A. Manzaneque Valverde and J. Rivas Andrés, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by D. Grespan, S. Noë, L. Armati and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020, Volotea v Commission (T-607/17, EU:T:2020:180);

2.	Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020, easyJet Airline v Commission (T-8/18, EU:T:2020:182), in so far as that court dismissed the action for annulment of easyJet Airline Co. Ltd as unfounded;

3.	Annuls European Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI), in so far as it concerns, first, Volotea SA, and, second, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd;

4.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs related to the proceedings at first instance and to the proceedings on appeal.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Rodl & Partner’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-562/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Point 3(b) of Annex III - Risk-based approach - Risk assessment carried out by obliged entities - Identification of risks by Member States and obliged entities - Customer due diligence measures - Enhanced due diligence measures - High-corruption-risk third countries - Article 13(1)(c) and (d) - Evidence and documentation requirements for obliged entities - Article 14(5) - Ongoing monitoring of customers by obliged entities - Publication of decisions imposing a sanction)

(2023/C 15/07)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Rodl & Partner’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(1) and (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, read in conjunction with Article 5 of and point 3(b) of Annex III to that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require an obliged entity automatically to assign a high-risk level to a customer and therefore to adopt enhanced due diligence measures in respect of that customer solely because the customer is a non-governmental organisation, or one of the employees of that customer is a national of a high-corruption-risk third country, or a business partner of that customer, but not the customer itself, is linked to such a third country. A Member State may, however, identify such circumstances in national law as factors indicative of a potentially higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, which obliged entities must take into account in their risk assessment of their customers, provided that those factors are in conformity with European Union law and, in particular, the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

Article 13(1)(c) and (d) of Directive 2015/849, read in conjunction with Article 8(2), Article 13(4) and point (a) and of the first subparagraph of Article 40(1) of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the obliged entity, when taking customer due diligence measures, to obtain from the customer concerned a copy of the contract concluded between that customer and a third party, provided that the obliged entity can provide the competent national authority with other appropriate documents showing that it has analysed the transaction and the business relationship between that customer and the third party and has taken due account of it in order to adopt the necessary due diligence measures with regard to the identified risks of money laundering and terrorist financing.

Article 14(5) of Directive 2015/849, read in conjunction with Article 8(2) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that obliged entities have an obligation to adopt, on the basis of an up-to-date risk assessment, due diligence measures, where appropriate of an enhanced nature, in respect of an existing customer, where that appears appropriate, in particular where there has been a change in the relevant factors relating to the situation of that customer, regardless of the fact that the maximum period laid down by national law for carrying out a new risk assessment in respect of that customer has not yet expired. That obligation does not only apply to customers with a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.

Article 60(1) and (2) of Directive 2015/849

must be interpreted as meaning that when publishing a decision imposing a sanction adopted on account of an infringement of the national provisions transposing that directive, the competent national authority is required to ensure that the information published is exactly the same as that contained in that decision.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-607/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 26(1)(b) - Supply of services free of charge - Award of retail vouchers free of charge to staff of the taxable person’s business as part of an employee recognition and reward scheme - Transactions treated as supplies of services for consideration - Scope - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2023/C 15/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 26(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services consisting, for a business, in offering retail vouchers to its employees, in the context of a programme set up by that business, designed to recognise and reward the most deserving and high-performing employees, does not fall within its scope.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht v TB

(Case C-646/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Divorce - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 2(4) and Article 21 - Concept of ‘judgment’ - Recognition, in a Member State, of the dissolution of a marriage agreed in an agreement between spouses and pronounced by a civil registrar of another Member State - Criterion for determining the existence of a ‘judgment’)

(2023/C 15/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht

Defendant: TB

Intervening parties: Standesamt Mitte von Berlin, RD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000,

must be interpreted, in particular for the purpose of the application of Article 21(1) of that regulation, as meaning that a divorce decree drawn up by a civil registrar of the Member State of origin, containing a divorce agreement concluded by the spouses and confirmed by them before that registrar in accordance with the conditions laid down by the legislation of that Member State, constitutes a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Article 2(4).

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/11

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Antea Polska S.A., Pectore-Eco sp. z o.o., Instytut Ochrony Środowiska — Państwowy Instytut Badawczy v Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie

(Case C-54/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Principles of awarding contracts - Article 18 - Transparency - Article 21 - Confidentiality - Insertion of those principles in the national legislation - Right of access to the essential content of the information provided by tenderers concerning their experience and references, concerning the persons proposed to carry out the contract and concerning the design of the proposed projects and the manner of performance - Article 67 - Contract award criteria - Criteria relating to the quality of the proposed work or services - Requirement of precision - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(1) and (3) - Right to an effective remedy - Remedy in the event of infringement of that right on account of the refusal to grant access to non-confidential information)

(2023/C 15/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antea Polska S.A., Pectore-Eco sp. z o.o., Instytut Ochrony Środowiska — Państwowy Instytut Badawczy

Defendant: Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie

Intervening parties: Arup Polska sp. z o.o., CDM Smith sp. z o.o., Multiconsult Polska sp. z o.o., Arcadis sp. z o.o., Hydroconsult sp. z o.o. Biuro Studiów i Badań Hydrogeologicznych i Geofizycznych

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(1) and Article 21(1), read in conjunction with Article 50(4) and Article 55(3) of 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on public procurement which requires that, with the sole exception of trade secrets, information sent by the tenderers to the contracting authorities must be published in its entirety or communicated to the other tenderers, and as precluding a practice of contracting authorities whereby requests for confidential treatment in respect of trade secrets are accepted as a matter of course.

Article 18(1), Article 21(1), and Article 55(3) of Directive 2014/24,

must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority

—

must, in order to determine whether it will refuse a tenderer whose admissible tender has been rejected access to the information which other tenderers submitted concerning (i) their relevant experience and the references relating thereto, (ii) the identity and professional qualifications of the persons that they propose will perform the contract or the sub-contractors and (iii) the design of the projects to be performed under the contract and the manner of performance of that contract, assess whether that information has a commercial value outside the scope of the public contract in question, where its disclosure might undermine legitimate commercial or fair competition;

—	may, moreover, refuse to grant access to that information where, even though it does not have such commercial value, its disclosure would impede law enforcement or would be contrary to the public interest; and

—	must, where full access to information is refused, grant that tenderer access to the essential content of that information, so that observance of the right to an effective remedy is ensured.

Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24, read in the light of Article 67(4) of that directive,

must be interpreted as not precluding the ‘project development design’, planned to be carried out under the public contract in question and the ‘description of the manner of performance of the contract’ for that contract from being included among the criteria for the award of the contract, provided that those criteria are accompanied by indications enabling the contracting authority to make a specific and objective assessment of the tenders submitted.

Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014,

must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a finding, when dealing with an action brought against a decision awarding a public contract, of an obligation on the part of the contracting authority to disclose to the applicant information which was wrongly treated as confidential and of a breach of the right to an effective remedy on account of the failure to disclose that information, that finding does not necessarily have to lead to the adoption, by that contracting authority, of a new contract award decision, provided that the national procedural law permits the court hearing the case to adopt, during the proceedings, measures which restore observance of the right to an effective remedy or allow it to find that the applicant may bring a new action against the award decision that has already been made. The time limit for bringing such an action must not start to run until the applicant has access to all the information which had been wrongly classified as confidential.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Harman International Industries Inc. v AB SA

(Case C-175/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Intellectual property - EU trade mark - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 15 - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Placing on the market within the European Economic Area (EEA) - Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark - Place of first marketing of products by the proprietor of the trade mark or with its consent - Proof - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - Operative part of judicial decisions not identifying the products covered - Difficulties in implementation - Restricted scope of action before the competent court for enforcement - Fair trial - Rights of the defence - Principle of the equality of arms)

(2023/C 15/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Harman International Industries Inc.

Defendant: AB SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, read in combination with the second sentence of Article 36 TFEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. and Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,

must be interpreted as

not precluding a judicial practice by which the operative part of the decision upholding an action for infringement of an EU trade mark is drafted in terms which, owing to their general nature, leaves it to the authority with competence to enforce that decision to determine the products to which that decision applies, provided that, in the context of the enforcement procedure, the defendant is permitted to contest the determination of the products covered by that procedure and that a court may examine and decide, in compliance with the provisions of Directive 2004/48, which products have in fact been placed on the market in the European Economic Area by the proprietor or with its consent.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z v Belgische Staat

(Case C-230/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 2(f) - Article 10(3)(a) - Concept of ‘unaccompanied minor’ - Right to family reunification - Refugee minor who is married at the time of her entry into the territory of a Member State - Child marriage not recognised in that Member State - Cohabitation with the spouse lawfully residing in that Member State)

(2023/C 15/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(3)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, read in conjunction with Article 2(f) of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that an unaccompanied refugee minor residing in a Member State does not have to be unmarried in order to acquire the status of sponsor for the purposes of family reunification with his or her first-degree relatives in the direct ascending line.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Porr Bau GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Graz-Umgebung

(Case C-238/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Point 1 of Article 3 - Article 5(1) - Article 6(1) - Excavated materials - Concepts of ‘waste’ and of ‘by-product’ - Cessation of waste status)

(2023/C 15/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Porr Bau GmbH

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Graz-Umgebung

Operative part of the judgment

Point 1 of Article 3 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,

must be interpreted as

precluding national legislation under which uncontaminated excavated materials, which, pursuant to national law, are in the highest quality class,

—	must be classified as ‘waste’ where their holder neither intends nor is required to discard them and those materials meet the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive for being classified as ‘by-products’, and

—	only lose that waste status when they are used directly as a substitute and their holder has satisfied the formal criteria which are irrelevant for the purposes of environmental protection, if those criteria have the effect of undermining the attainment of the objectives of that directive.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — ‘TOYA’ sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-243/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Telecommunications - Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) - Article 8(3) - Directive 2014/61/EU - Articles 1(3), 1(4) and 3(5) - Power of the national regulatory authority to impose ex ante regulatory conditions relating to access to the physical infrastructure of a network operator not having significant market power - Absence of a dispute relating to access)

(2023/C 15/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘TOYA’ sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Intervener: Polska Izba Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(3), 1(4) and 3(5) of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks, read in conjunction with (i) Articles 1(1), 5(1) and 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and (ii) Articles 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) as amended by Directive 2009/140,

must be interpreted as not precluding a competent national regulatory authority in the field of electronic communications from imposing on a network operator which has not been designated as having significant market power the obligation to apply the conditions for access to that operator’s physical infrastructure by the undertakings active in that area, as determined ex ante by that authority, including the rules and procedures for entering into contracts and the applicable access fees, irrespective of the existence of a dispute relating to that access and effective competition.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/16

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VT v Ministero dell’Interno and Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

(Case C-304/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation fixing a maximum age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of police commissioners - Justification)

(2023/C 15/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VT

Respondents: Ministero dell’Interno and Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the fixing of a maximum age limit of 30 years for participation in a competition aimed at recruiting police commissioners, in so far as the duties actually performed by those police commissioners do not require particular physical capacities or, if such physical capacities are required, it is apparent that such legislation, while pursuing a legitimate aim, imposes a disproportionate requirement, which it is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/16

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings initiated by the Spetsializirana prokuratura

(Case C-350/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector - Confidentiality of communications - Providers of electronic communications services - General and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data for a period of six months - Combating serious crime - Access to the retained data - Informing the data subjects - Right to a remedy - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 15(1) and (2) - Directive (EU) 2016/680 - Articles 13 and 54 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7, 8, 11 and 47 and Article 52(1))

(2023/C 15/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Party in the main proceedings

Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

—

must be interpreted as precluding (i) national legislation that provides, by way of prevention, for the purpose of combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security, for general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data, even if that legislation limits that general and indiscriminate retention to a period of six months and provides for a certain number of safeguards as regards retention of and access to the data in question; and (ii) national legislation that does not provide, in a clear and precise manner, that the access to the retained data is limited to what is strictly necessary for achieving the objective pursued by that retention.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 13 and 54 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for access, on the part of the national authorities competent to undertake criminal investigations, to lawfully retained traffic and location data, without guaranteeing that the persons whose data have been accessed by those national authorities are informed thereof to the extent provided for under EU law, and without those persons having any remedy against unlawful access to those data.

(1) OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/17

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Avicarvil Farms SRL v Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Vâlcea

(Case C-443/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Article 40 - National rural development programme 2007-2013 - Animal welfare payments - Calculation errors - Reductions in payments by the national authorities - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of legal certainty)

(2023/C 15/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Piteşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Avicarvil Farms SRL

Defendants: Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Vâlcea

Operative part of the judgment

Article 40(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 of 19 January 2009, and Article 58(1) of 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, read in conjunction with Article 310(5) TFEU, and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty

must be interpreted as

not precluding the national authorities involved in the implementation of a non-repayable financial support measure from adopting, on account of a calculation error found by the European Court of Auditors, acts ordering a reduction in the amount of financial aid granted under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) Rural Development Programme for Romania for the 2007 to 2013 programming period, as approved by the European Commission, without waiting for the Commission to adopt a decision excluding the amounts resulting from that calculation error from EU financing.

(1) OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/18

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-578/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 4 - Member State legislation on business property taxation - Methods for valuation of property used to calculate the basis of assessment of the rate payable - Complaint from wind farm operators - Allegation of an under-assessment of the basis of assessment for the business rate payable by fossil fuel electricity producers and, consequently, of a level of business rate of those electricity generators lower than that of other electricity producers due to the choice of valuation method used - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding that there is no State aid - No economic and selective advantage - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ - Extent of the European Commission’s investigative duty - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to conduct the investigation procedure diligently and impartially - Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union)

(2023/C 15/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (represented by: M. Segura Catalán, abogada, and M. Clayton, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Georgiopoulos, S. Noë and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd and Greenoge Windfarm Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/19

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2022 — Maen Haikal v Council of the European Union

(Case C-113/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against leading businesspersons operating in Syria - Lists of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Proof that the inclusion of the appellant’s name on those lists is well founded - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

(2023/C 15/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Maen Haikal (represented by: S. Koev, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Karaleev and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

2.	Mr Maen Haikal shall pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/19

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri v PF

(Case C-569/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation fixing a maximum age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of technical psychologist commissioners - Justification)

(2023/C 15/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring Court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell’Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri

Respondent: PF

Operative part of the order

(1) Date lodged: 16.9.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/20

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — PL v État belge

(Case C-56/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to set out the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 15/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PL

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Liège (Court of First Instance, Liège, Belgium), made by decision of 14 January 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/21

Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 3 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Eilenburg — Germany) — YS, RW v Freebird Airlines Europe Ltd.

(Case C-302/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation for air passengers in the event of long delays to flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Extraordinary circumstances - Collision between an aircraft and birds - Emergency braking manoeuvre leading to damage to the tyres of that aircraft)

(2023/C 15/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Eilenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: YS, RW

Defendant: Freebird Airlines Europe Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that

the interruption of the take-off phase of an aircraft caused by the collision of that aircraft with birds and resulting in an emergency braking manoeuvre damaging the tyres of that aircraft comes within the scope of the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, for the purposes of that provision.

(1) Filing date: 6. 5.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2021 — GP and BG v Banco Santander, S. A.

(Case C-561/21)

(2023/C 15/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: GP and BG

Respondent: Banco Santander, S. A.

Questions referred

Is it compatible with the principle of legal certainty to interpret Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) as meaning that the limitation period for an action to recover payments made pursuant to an unfair term does not begin to run until that term has been declared invalid by a final judgment?

If such an interpretation is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, do Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC preclude an interpretation according to which the starting point of the limitation period is the date of the judgments of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) laying down case-law on the effects of restitution (judgments of 23 January 2019)?

If such an interpretation is incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(1), do those articles preclude an interpretation according to which the starting point of the limitation period is the date of the judgments of the Court of Justice holding that an action for restitution may be subject to a limitation period (essentially, the judgment of 9 July 2020, Raiffeisen Bank SA, Joined Cases C-698/10 and 699/18, and the judgment of 16 July 2020, Caixabank SA, Joined Cases C-224/19 and C-259/19, which confirmed the former)?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/22

Appeal brought on 23 May 2022 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2022 in Case T-281/21, Nowhere v EUIPO

(Case C-337/22 P)

(2023/C 15/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, D. Gája, V. Ruzek, E. Markakis, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Nowhere Co. Ltd

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal in Case T-281/21;

—	dismiss in whole the action of the Applicant at first instance directed against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 2474/2017-2;

—	order the Applicant at first instance to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO relating to the present appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, EUIPO puts forward a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009 (1) by the judgment under appeal in holding that the Board of Appeal should have taken into account the earlier UK non-registered rights relied upon as basis of the opposition despite the fact that the contested decision was taken at the moment when the UK was no longer a Member State of the European Union, and the transition period provided in the Withdrawal Agreement (2) had ended. This raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of Union law.

The General Court incorrectly considered that the only relevant point in time in respect of which the opposition must be assessed is the filing date of the contested EU trade mark application,

i.	having conflated the issue of determining the law applicable ratione temporis to the present case, on the one hand, and the substantive question of the need of validity of the earlier right on the date EUIPO takes the final decision on the opposition, on the other,

ii.	having relied on its own, incorrect, case-law, in any event not applicable to the case at hand,

iii.	having drawn an incorrect legal conclusion from the absence of any provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement concerning oppositions brought before the end of the transition period against EU trade mark applications,

iv.

having disregarded the Court of Justice’s case law concerning differences between infringement and administrative/registration proceedings and consequently erroneously holding that

a.	there was a conflict between the contested EU trade mark application and the earlier UK rights in the period between the filing date of the contested EU trade mark application and the end of the transition period and that

b.	the Applicant at first instance had, after the end of the transition period, a legitimate interest in the success of its opposition.

having disregarded the legislator’s will and the principle of territoriality of intellectual property rights when it held that a possible conversion of the contested EU trade mark application in national trade marks that would be identical in their scope of protection to that of the contested EU trade mark application if registered, had no bearing

a.	on the Applicant in first instance’s interest in the success in the opposition and

b.	on the existence of a conflict between the earlier UK rights and the contested EU trade mark application,

vi.

having failed to give proper weight to the wording, that is, grammar and syntax, of the provision of Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009, to the context of the provisions of Rules 19(2)(d) and 20(1) of Regulation 2868/95 (3) concerning substantiation of the earlier rights, to the context of the provisions of Article 42 of Regulation 207/2009 concerning the proof of use defence, and in particular to the objectives of Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009 and essential purpose of opposition proceedings, which is to protect interests of proprietors of earlier rights in preserving the essential function of those rights against conflicts with later EU trade marks, in case the latter would be registered.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).

(2) Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community2019/C 384 I/01 (OJ 2019, C 384I, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995, L 303, p. 1).

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2022 — AH

(Case C-608/22)

(2023/C 15/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: AH

Respondent authority: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (BFA)

Questions referred

Is the accumulation of measures taken, supported or tolerated in a State by a de facto government actor and consisting, in particular, of the fact that women

—	are denied participation in political office and political decision-making processes,

—	are provided with no legal means to be able to obtain protection from gender-based and domestic violence,

—

are generally at risk of forced marriages; even though they have been prohibited by the de facto government actor, women are not afforded effective protection against forced marriages and such marriages are sometimes performed with the participation of de facto government actors in the knowledge that it is a forced marriage,

—	are not allowed to engage in gainful employment or are allowed to do so only to a limited extent, mainly at home,

—	have difficulties in accessing health facilities,

—	are fully or largely denied access to education (for example by allowing girls only a primary school education),

—	are not allowed to be or move about in public without being accompanied by a man (who must be of a certain family relationship) or, at most, are permitted to do so only a certain distance from home,

—	must completely cover their bodies and veil their faces in public,

—	may not take part in any sports,

as referred to in Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), to be regarded as sufficiently severe as to affect a woman in a similar manner as described in Article 9(1)(a) of that directive?

Is it sufficient, for the granting of asylum status, that a woman is affected by those measures in the country of origin merely on the basis of her gender, or is it necessary to assess a woman’s individual situation in order to determine whether she is affected by those measures — to be considered in their entirety — within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU?

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

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2022 — FN

(Case C-609/22)

(2023/C 15/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: FN

Respondent authority: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (BFA)

Questions referred

Is the accumulation of measures taken, supported or tolerated in a State by a de facto government actor and consisting, in particular, of the fact that women

—	are denied participation in political office and political decision-making processes,

—	are provided with no legal means to be able to obtain protection from gender-based and domestic violence,

—

—	are not allowed to engage in gainful employment or are allowed to do so only to a limited extent, mainly at home,

—	have difficulties in accessing health facilities,

—	are fully or largely denied access to education (for example by allowing girls only a primary school education),

—	are not allowed to be or move about in public without being accompanied by a man (who must be of a certain family relationship) or, at most, are permitted to do so only a certain distance from home,

—	must completely cover their bodies and veil their faces in public,

—	may not take part in any sports,

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

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 September 2022 — Société BP France v Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique

(Case C-624/22)

(2023/C 15/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société BP France

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique

Questions referred

Must the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and Article 30 of Directive 2018/2001 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the monitoring mechanisms under the mass balance approach, and the national or voluntary systems which they lay down, are intended only to assess and to justify the sustainability of the raw materials and biofuels, and mixtures of them, and are not therefore intended to regulate the monitoring and traceability, in finished products resulting from the co-processing procedure, of the share of energy from renewable sources contained in those products and consequently to harmonise consideration of the share of energy contained in such products for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2009/28/EC, and Article 25 and Article 29(1), first subparagraph, (a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2018/2001?

If the first question is answered in the negative, do those provisions preclude a Member State, in order to set the volume of HVO to be retained as input to the stock accounts which operators must maintain for the purposes of determining an incentive tax on the incorporation of biofuels paid in that State when the share of renewable energy in fuel released for consumption during the calendar year is lower than the national target for the share of renewable energy in transport, from requiring, upon entry into the first national tax warehousing facility in relation to imports of fuel containing HVO produced in another Member State under a co-processing procedure, a physical analysis of the HVO content of such fuel to be carried out, including where the installation in which the fuel was produced uses a mass balance approach which is certified by a voluntary system recognised by the Commission as being a comprehensive system?

Does EU law, in particular the provisions of Article 34 TFEU, preclude a measure adopted by a Member State such as that described in paragraph 14 above, where, on the one hand, fuel containing biofuel produced by means of the co-processing procedure carried out within a refinery located on the national territory of that Member State is not subject, when it is released for consumption in that Member State directly on leaving the installation, to such a physical analysis, and where, on the other, the Member State agrees, in order to determine, upon exit from a tax warehousing facility for production or national tax warehousing facility, the biofuel content which may be allocated for tax purposes between content certificates issued for a given period, to evaluate, on the basis of the installation’s average monthly incorporation rate, the biofuel content of exports or releases from consumption in sectors other than transport?

(1) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

(2) Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) (OJ 2018, L 328, p. 82).

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 3 October 2022 — C. Z., M. C., S. P. and Others v Ilva SpA (in extraordinary administration), Acciaierie d’Italia Holding SpA, Acciaierie d’Italia SpA

(Case C-626/22)

(2023/C 15/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: C. Z., M. C., S. P. and Others

Defendants: Ilva SpA (in extraordinary administration), Acciaierie d’Italia Holding SpA, Acciaierie d’Italia SpA

Questions referred

May Directive 2010/75/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), in particular recitals 4, 18, 34, 28 and 29 and Articles 3(2), 11, 12 and 23 thereof, together with the precautionary principle and the principle of the protection of human health referred to in Article 191 TFEU and Article 174 of the [EC] Treaty, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, on the basis of a national law, provide that the Assessment of Adverse Effects on Health (AAEH) is an act falling outside the scope of the procedure for the grant and review of the Integrated Environmental Permit (IEP) — in this instance [the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers (DPCM) of] 2017 — and that the drawing up of an AAEH need not have any automatic consequences in terms of its timely and proper consideration by the competent authority in the context of an IEP/DPCM review procedure, especially where the AAEH indicates an unacceptable health risk for a significant population affected by the polluting emissions, or may that directive rather be interpreted as meaning that: (i) the tolerable risk to human health may be assessed by means of a scientific, epidemiological analysis; (ii) the AAEH must be an act coming within the scope of the IEP/DPCM grant and review procedure, and indeed a necessary prerequisite of that procedure and one demanding mandatory, proper and timely consideration by the authority having competence to grant and review the IEP?

May Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), in particular, recitals 4, [15], 18, 21, 34, 28 and 29 and Articles 3(2), 11, 14, 15, 18 and 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, on the basis of a national law, a Member State must provide that the Integrated Environmental Permit (in this instance, IEP 2012, DPCM 2014, DPCM 2017) must always take into account all the emitted substances which have been scientifically shown to be harmful, including fractions of PM10 and PM2,5, and which originate from the plant under assessment, or may that directive be interpreted as meaning that the Integrated Environmental Permit (the administrative decision granting authorisation) need cover only polluting substances identified in advance by reference to the nature and type of industrial activity being carried on?

May Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), in particular recitals 4, 18, 21, 22, 28, 29, 34 and 43 and Articles 3(2), 25, 11, 14, 16 and 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, on the basis of a national law, a Member State may, where an industrial activity is creating a serious and significant threat to the integrity of the environment and human health, extend the period within which the operator must bring the industrial activity into line with the permit granted, by carrying out the environmental protection and health protection measures and actions provided for therein, by approximately seven and a half years from the deadline initially set, giving a total period of eleven years?

(1) OJ 2010 L 334, p 17.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 4 October 2022 — AB v Finanzamt Köln-Süd

(Case C-627/22)

(2023/C 15/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AB

Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Süd

Question referred

Are the provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, (1) which entered into force on 1 June 2002 (‘the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons’; ‘the AFMP’), in particular Articles 7 and 15 of the AFMP, read in conjunction with Article 9(2) of Annex I to the AFMP (right to equal treatment), to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which employees who are nationals of an EU or EEA Member State (including Germany) and who reside (with their place of residence or habitual abode) in Germany or in EU/EEA States may voluntarily apply for an assessment of income tax that takes into account income from employment that is taxable in Germany (‘voluntary assessment’), in particular in order to receive an income tax refund allowing for expenses (income-related expenses) and crediting German wage tax withheld as part of the tax deduction procedure, but that right is denied to German and Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland?

(1) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/28

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2022 — JK v Kirchliches Krankenhaus

(Case C-630/22)

(2023/C 15/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant, respondent and appellant on a point of law: JK

Defendant, appellant and respondent on a point of law: Kirchliches Krankenhaus

Questions referred

Is it compatible with EU law, in particular Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘Directive 2000/78/EC’) (1) in light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), if a national provision provides

that a private organisation whose ethos is based on religious principles

(a)	may deem unsuitable for employment in its establishment persons who have left a particular religious community prior to the establishment of the employment relationship, or

(b)	may require of its staff that they have not left a particular religious community prior to the establishment of the employment relationship, or

(c)	may make it a condition of employment that a member of staff who has left a particular religious community prior to the establishment of the employment relationship rejoin said community, if it does not also require its staff to belong to that religious community?

2.	If the first question is answered in the affirmative: What, if any, further requirements apply under Directive 2000/78/EC in light of Article 21 of the Charter in order to justify such a difference of treatment on grounds of religion?

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/29

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2022 — RK v Ministerstvo zdravotnictví

(Case C-659/22)

(2023/C 15/31)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RK

Defendant: Ministerstvo zdravotnictví

Question referred

Does the verification, using the national ‘čTečka’ application, of the validity of interoperable Covid-19 vaccination, test, or recovery certificates, issued pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are used by the Czech Republic for national purposes, amount to automated processing of personal data pursuant to Article 4, point (2), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27. April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), and hence, is the material scope of the General Data Protection Regulation thus established, pursuant to Article 2(1) of that regulation?

(1) OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/29

Action brought on 10 November 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-694/22)

(2023/C 15/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Björkland, K. Mifsud-Bonnici, R. Valletta Mallia, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that, by levying higher annual circulation tax on motor vehicles registered in other Member States before 1 January 2009 and brought to Malta after that date than on similar domestic vehicles, under the Fourth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Registration and Licensing Act as amended by Act VI of 2009, Chapter 368 of the Laws of Malta, Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 of the TFEU; and

—	order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 of the TFEU by levying higher annual circulation tax on motor vehicles registered in other Member States before 1 January 2009 and brought to Malta after that date, than the annual circulation tax that is issued on similar domestic vehicles.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/30

Appeal brought on 11 November 2022 by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-603/19 Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy v European Commission

(Case C-697/22 P)

(2023/C 15/33)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Appellant: Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (represented by: O. Hyvönen and N. Rosenlund)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Finland, Nobina Oy and Nobina AB

Form of order sought

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 September 2022 in Case T-603/19 (1) in its entirety;

—	grant in full the form of order sought by the appellant before the General Court on the grounds set out in the appeal; and

—	order the European Commission to pay all the costs incurred by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, together with statutory interest;

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Case T-603/19 the General Court of the European Union infringed EU law and erred in law by dismissing the action brought by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy.

In the first plea, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, the General Court erred, because the contested Commission decision was adopted in breach of the appellant’s procedural rights.

The General Court also incorrectly ruled on the fourth plea in so far as it relates to compliance with the principle of proportionality.

The judgment of the General Court is contrary to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (2) and violates fundamental principles of EU law, namely the right to be heard in a case concerning it and the principle of proportionality.

In its appeal, the appellant argues that the right to be heard in administrative proceedings constitutes a fundamental right. Failure to give the party concerned the opportunity to be heard before a decision contrary to its interests is taken constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

The applicant also submits that excessive recovery constitutes a measure contrary to the principle of proportionality and to the purpose of the recovery. When the beneficiary of a transfer of business is subject to an order for recovery, it is always necessary to determine to what extent the latter may still possibly benefit from the prohibited State aid, in other words, it is necessary to determine the amount of benefit transferred.

(1) EU:T:2022:555.

(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/31

Appeal brought on 17 November 2022 by JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-642/19, JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission

(Case C-710/22 P)

(2023/C 15/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium (represented by: A. Winckler, M. Malanda, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Clear Channel Belgium

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 September 2022 in Case T-642/19, JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission;

—

grant the form of order sought by JCDecaux at first instance and annul Article 1 of Decision C(2019) 4466 of the European Commission of 24 June 2019 on State aid SA.33078 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium in favour of JC Decaux Belgium Publicité, in so far as it found that there was incompatible State aid in favour of JCDecaux in the performance of the 1984 contract, and Articles 2 to 4, in so far as they order the Belgian State to recover the aid from JCDecaux;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, JCDecaux submits that the General Court, in its judgment, adopted contradictory reasoning and erred in law in finding that the use by JCDecaux of certain advertising displays under the 1984 contract after their expiry date constituted an economic advantage, and distorted the facts in so far as it found that the advertising displays that were kept in place were covered by the 1999 contract on the basis of which ‘rent and taxes’ were due.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/32

Order of the President of the Court of 9 August 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — AC (C-148/20), DF (C-149/20), BD (C-150/20) v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, interested party: Bundeskriminalamt (C-150/20)

(Joined Cases C-148/20 to C-150/20) (1)

(2023/C 15/35)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/32

Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — JV (C-215/20), OC (C-222/20) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Joined Cases C-215/20 and C-222/20) (1)

(2023/C 15/36)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/32

Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — proceedings brought by Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije, intervening parties: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije, Vlada Republike Slovenije

(Case C-486/20) (1)

(2023/C 15/37)

Language of the case: Slovenian

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

(1) OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/32

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 7 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível — Portugal) — Portugália — Administração de Patrimónios, SGPS, SA v Banco BPI

(Case C-448/21) (1)

(2023/C 15/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

(1) OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/33

Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 2 de León — Spain) — ACNC v Unicaja Banco, SA

(Case C-652/21) (1)

(2023/C 15/39)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

(1) OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/33

Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-789/21) (1)

(2023/C 15/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

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

(1) OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/33

Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — ME v État belge

(Case C-191/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/41)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 213, 30.5.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/33

Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — TR, UQ v FTI Touristik GmbH

(Case C-193/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/42)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/34

Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2022 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-214/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/43)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/34

Order of the President of the Court of 13 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Research Consorzio Stabile Scarl, acting on its own account and as agent of the association of undertakings to be constituted (Research-Cisa), C.I.S.A. SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the same association (Research-Cisa), Debar Costruzioni SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the association to be constituted with Consorzio Stabile COM Scarl, C.N. Costruzioni Generali SpA and Edil.Co. Srl, Invitalia — Agenzia Nazionale per l’Attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa v Invitalia — Agenzia Nazionale per l’Attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa, Debar Costruzioni SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the association to be constituted with Consorzio Stabile COM Scarl, C.N. Costruzioni Generali SpA and Edil.Co. Srl, Research Consorzio Stabile Scarl, acting on its own account and as agent of the association of undertakings to be constituted (Research-Cisa), C.I.S.A. SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the same association (Research-Cisa), intervening party: Invitalia — Agenzia Nazionale per l’Attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa

(Case C-215/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/44)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

General Court

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/35

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Cambodia and CRF v Commission

(Case T-246/19) (1)

(Safeguard measures - Rice market - Imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia and Myanmar/Burma - Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 - Concept of ‘Union producers’ - Concept of ‘like or directly competing products’ - Serious difficulties - Rights of the defence - Essential facts and considerations - Manifest errors of assessment)

(2023/C 15/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of Cambodia, Cambodia Rice Federation (CRF) (Phnom Penh, Cambodia) (represented by R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, H. Leupold and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Ente Nazionale Risi (Milan, Italy) (represented by F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers), Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/67 of 16 January 2019 imposing safeguard measures with regard to imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia and Myanmar/Burma (OJ 2019 L 15, p. 5), by which the European Commission reintroduced the Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of that rice for a period of three years and introduced a progressive reduction in the rate of duty applicable.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/67 of 16 January 2019 imposing safeguard measures with regard to imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia and Myanmar/Burma;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Cambodia and by Cambodia Rice Federation (CRF);

3.	Orders the Italian Republic and Ente Nazionale Risi to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/36

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Ryanair v Commission (Croatia Airlines; COVID-19)

(Case T-111/21) (1)

(State aid - Croatian air transport market - Aid granted by Croatia to an airline in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic - Direct grant - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Serious difficulties - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Equal treatment - Freedom of establishment - Free provision of services - Assessment of the damage - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 15/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by L. Flynn and C. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Croatia (represented by G. Vidović Mesarek, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 8608 final of 30 November 2020 on State aid SA.55373 (2020/N) — Croatia — COVID-19: Damage compensation to Croatia Airlines (OJ 2021 C 17, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/36

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission

(Case T-158/21) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ - Commission communication setting out the reasons for not adopting the proposals for legal acts contained in the European citizens’ initiative - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Manifest error of assessment)

(2023/C 15/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Citizens’ Committee of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (represented by T. Hieber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by I. Martínez del Peral, I. Rubene, E. Stamate and D. Drambozova, acting as Agents)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by T. Papadopoulou, acting as Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by E. Drugda, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Communication C(2021) 171 final of 14 January 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Citizens’ Committee of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders the Hellenic Republic, Hungary and the Slovak Republic to each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/37

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — QM v Europol

(Case T-164/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period - Interests of the service - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

(2023/C 15/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: A. Nunzi, O. Sajin and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) of 27 May 2020 not to renew his employment contract for an indefinite period and, so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of 18 December 2020 rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders QM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/38

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Société Elmar Wolf v EUIPO — Fuxtec (Representation of the head of an animal)

(Case T-596/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a head - Earlier national figurative mark representing the head of a canine - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing the head of a canine - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)

(2023/C 15/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by N. Boespflug, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Fuxtec GmbH (Herrenberg, Germany) (represented by M. Hammer and C. Koller, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 2834/2019-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Société Elmar Wolf, since it has been unsuccessful, to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/39

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Heinze (K K WATER)

(Case T-610/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark K K WATER - Earlier EU figurative mark K - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 15/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Arne-Patrik Heinze (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Dauskardt, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2020-2);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by L’Oréal, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

3.	Orders Mr Arne-Patrik Heinze to bear his own costs.

(1) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/39

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — CB v EUIPO — China Construction Bank (CCB)

(Case T-639/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark CCB - Earlier EU figurative mark CB - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CB - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 15/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: China Construction Bank Corp. (Beijing, China) (represented by: C. Gommers, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 1305/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/40

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Financiere Batteur v EUIPO — Leno Beauty (by L.e.n.o beauty)

(Case T-779/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark by L.e.n.o beauty - Earlier national word mark LAINO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 15/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Financiere Batteur (Hérouville-Saint-Clair, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and F. Donaud, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Leno Beauty Sas (Vintimille, Italy)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 October 2021 (Case R 514/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Financiere Batteur to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/41

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — PB v Commission

(Case T-407/21 R)

(Interim relief - Public service contracts - Irregularities in the contract award procedure - Recovery of amounts unduly paid - Enforceable decision - Application for interim measures - Urgency - Prima facie case - Balance of interests)

(2023/C 15/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce, J. Estrada de Solà and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, suspension of application of Commission Decision C(2021) 3338 final of 5 May 2021 concerning the recovery of the amount of EUR 5 038 737,86 plus interest payable by the director of the company [confidential information redacted] and, second, an order preventing the European Commission from recovering the amount indicated in that decision in any manner whatsoever, in particular by implementing the debit note, until the Court has ruled on the main action.

Operative part of the order

1.	Application of Commission Decision C(2021) 3338 final of 5 May 2021 concerning the recovery of the amount of EUR 5 038 737,86 plus interest payable by the director of the company [confidential information redacted] is suspended.

2.	The costs are reserved.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/41

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2022 — WO v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-603/21) (1)

(Civil service - Appointment of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Candidates nominated by [confidential] - Refusal by the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to appoint the applicant - No dispute between the Union and one of its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations and the CEOS - Article 270 TFEU - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2023/C 15/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WO (represented by V. Vitkovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (represented by L. De Matteis and J. Castillo García, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision No 28/2021 of the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 21 April 2021 rejecting a candidate for the position of European Delegated Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in [confidential].

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	WO shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/42

Order of the General Court of 17 October 2022 — Swords v Commission and ECDC

(Case T-55/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public health - Measures introduced in the European Union in the fight against the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic - Risk assessment reports drawn up by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) - Acts not open to challenge - European Commission communication and coordinated approach published on the basis of the risk assessment reports drawn up by the ECDC - Plea of illegality - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 15/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Swords (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by G. Byrne, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by A. Szmytkowska and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by R. Malacalza, M.-A. Ekström and E. Sinclair, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the risk assessment reports drawn up by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic on 24 and 26 November and on 2 and 15 December 2021 and also the inapplicability, under Article 277 TFEU, of the Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, of 1 December 2021, entitled, ‘Addressing together current and new COVID-19 challenges’ (COM/2021/764 final) and the coordinated approach, as accepted by the Health Security Committee (HSC), published by the Commission on 8 December 2021, which were based on the contested scientific opinions.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	Mr Patrick Swords shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/43

Action brought on 6 October 2022 — RS v EIB

(Case T-624/22)

(2023/C 15/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RS (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul (i) the European Investment Bank’s (hereafter the ‘EIB’) decision, with a specified date, with subject ‘Non conversion of fixed-term contract’ rejecting arguments submitted on behalf of applicant for the conversion of his employment contract, (ii) the EIB decision informing the applicant that his employment with the European Investment Bank will terminate on a specified date, and (iii) the EIB decision, issued on a specified date, rejecting the applicant’s request of administrative review disputing: (1o) the decision not to convert the applicant’s employment contract from a fixed-term to an indefinite-term employment contract with the EIB, and (2o) denouncing related infringements by the EIB of the applicant’s fundamental rights (hereafter the ‘Disputed Decisions’);

—	In the alternative, amend the disputed decisions; as well as

—

Award damages in relation to material damage suffered or to be suffered by Applicant as a result of the Disputed Decisions not to convert Applicant’s employment contract, amounting to EUR 193 882,98, including salary loss, health insurance premiums difference and family reimbursement loss as well as loss of pension;

—	Award damages in relation to the violation of the applicant’s privacy and data protection rights, his right to good administration and his right to an effective remedy and a fair trial amounting to EUR 20 000;

—	Award damages in relation to the moral prejudice and distress suffered by applicant amounting to EUR 20 000;

—	Award compensation for costs incurred as a result of the illegal behaviour, actions and omissions of the EIB and suffered from the applicant provisionally evaluated for an amount of EUR 20 000 (including VAT);

—	Order the defendant to pay the legal fees for the current proceedings amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 15 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the reasons alleged for potential non-conversion of contract result from an objectively established infringement of the right of confidentiality, the right of privacy and data protection rights of the applicant.

Second plea in law, alleging conflicts of interest and partiality of procedures used to justify the decisions relating to the non-conversion of the applicant’s employment contract and the resulting infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence.

Third plea in law, alleging a lack of serious motivation and the disproportionate character of the Disputed Decisions not to convert the applicant’s employment contract with the defendant and relevant related infringements of the applicant’s rights.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an objectively established breach of the applicant’s right of good administration, including the right to be heard (Article 41 (2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereafter the ‘EU Charter’)), the right to have access to his or her file and, as a result, to be spontaneously and timely informed of the progress and/or outcome of any institutional procedure in which he or she has been involved (Article 41(2)(b) of the EU Charter), and the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially and within a reasonable time (Article 41(1) of the EU Charter).

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/44

Action brought on 7 November 2022 — Vima World v Commission

(Case T-671/22)

(2023/C 15/57)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Vima World, SA (Panama City, Panama) (represented by: P. Braz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	annul Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

—	order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging an error in the presumptions of fact and of law, in that, in the present case, the measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, given that the profits generated in the Zona Franca da Madeira (Madeira Free Trade Zone) (ZFM) were subject to tax in Spain.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement of competition law, in that, in the present case, the decision to recover the incompatible aid granted subjects the profits made in the ZFM to double taxation.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in the presumptions of law in the contested decision, in that, Regime III of the ZFM complies with the requirements to create or maintain jobs in the Autonomous Region of Madeira laid down in Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final, in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU and in the 2007 Guidelines.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in the presumptions of fact and of law in the contested decision, in that, in that decision, the concept of an ‘activity effectively and materially performed in Madeira’, established in Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final, is interpreted strictly.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the breach of the obligation to state reasons, laid down in Article 296 TFEU.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/45

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Portal Golf Gestión v EUIPO — Augusta National (imaster.golf)

(Case T-677/22)

(2023/C 15/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Portal Golf Gestión, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Garrido Pastor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Augusta National, Inc. (Augusta, Georgia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark imaster.golf — Application for registration No 17 995 602

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2022 in Case R 2204/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	allow the registration of the mark applied for in respect of all the goods and services covered;

—	change the decisions on costs issued by the Opposition Division and the Appeal Division ordering to pay costs to the other side;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court.

Plea in law

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

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/45

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Shaman Spirits/EUIPO — Global Drinks Finland (LAPLANDIA Land of purity et al.)

(Case T-679/22)

(2023/C 15/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Oy Shaman Spirits Ltd (Tyrnävä, Finland) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Drinks Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade marks at issue: European Union figurative marks LAPLANDIA Land of purity et al. — European Union trade marks No 6 491 914, No 7 087 281 and No 14 786 883

Procedure before EUIPO: Procedure for entering licences in the Register

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2022 in Case R 909/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and the intervener to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Articles 25, 26 and 27 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Articles 19 and 20 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/46

Action brought on 16 November 2022 — Nicoventures Trading and Others v Commission

(Case T-706/22)

(2023/C 15/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nicoventures Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and 5 other applicants (represented by: L. Van den Hende, M. Schonberg, J. Penz-Evren and P. Wytinck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	order the annulment of the contested measure (1) in its entirety; and

—	order that the defendant pay the applicants’ costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measure goes beyond the powers delegated to the Commission under Articles 7(12) and 11(6) of Directive 2014/40/EU (2), for the following four reasons:

—	by regulating a novel tobacco product, the contested measure unlawfully addresses an ‘essential element’ within the meaning of Article 290(1) TFEU;

—	the contested measure unlawfully introduces a new ‘particular product category’ for the purposes of Directive 2014/40/EU and thereby also infringes the general EU law principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations;

—	The contested measure introduces a new ‘particular product category’ that is inconsistent with the system of Directive 2014/40/EU, and is consequently unlawful; and

—	The Commission’s approach to assessing the existence of a ‘substantial change of circumstances’ exceeds the scope of the task conferred upon it.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU and infringement of the principle of good administration.

(1) Commission’s Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100 of 29 June 2022 amending Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the withdrawal of certain exemptions in respect of heated tobacco products (OJ 2022, L 283, p. 4).

(2) Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014, L 127, p. 1).

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/47

Action brought on 8 November 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Herno (HERZO)

(Case T-719/22)

(2023/C 15/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Herno SpA (Lesa, 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 HERZO — Application for registration No 18 194 554

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2022 in Case R 297/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law

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

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/48

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — Hahn Rechtsanwälte v Commission

(Case T-87/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/62)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

16.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/48

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — 1906 Collins v EUIPO — Peace United (bâoli BEACH)

(Case T-160/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/63)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.