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

(2023/C 45/01)

Last publication

OJ C 35, 30.1.2023

Past publications

OJ C 24, 23.1.2023

OJ C 15, 16.1.2023

OJ C 7, 9.1.2023

OJ C 482, 19.12.2022

OJ C 472, 12.12.2022

OJ C 463, 5.12.2022

These texts are available on:

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

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società Eredi Raimondo Bufarini S.r.l. — Servizi Ambientali v Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero della Transizione Ecologica, Comitato tecnico regionale delle Marche, Coordinamento per l’uniforme applicazione sul territorio nazionale di cui all’art. 11 del D.Lgs. 105/2015

(Case C-144/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - Scope of the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling - Exceptions to that obligation - Criteria - Situations in which the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt - Condition related to the national court or tribunal of last instance being convinced that the matter would be equally obvious to the other courts or tribunals of last instance of the Member States and to the Court of Justice)

(2023/C 45/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Società Eredi Raimondo Bufarini S.r.l. — Servizi Ambientali

Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero della Transizione Ecologica, Comitato tecnico regionale delle Marche, Coordinamento per l’uniforme applicazione sul territorio nazionale di cui all’art. 11 del D.Lgs. 105/2015

Operative part of the order

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may refrain from referring to the Court a question concerning the interpretation of EU law and take upon itself the responsibility for resolving it where the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The question whether such a possibility exists must be assessed on the basis of the characteristic features of EU law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the European Union.

That national court or tribunal is not required to establish in detail that the other courts or tribunals of last instance of the Member States and the Court would give the same interpretation, but must have obtained the conviction, according to an assessment which takes account of those factors, that the matter would be equally obvious to those other national courts or tribunals and to the Court.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 28.2.2022.

Appeal brought on 4 April 2022 by Beata Sołowicz against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 28 January 2022 in Case T-725/21, Sołowicz v Commission

(Case C-236/22 P)

(2023/C 45/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Beata Sołowicz (represented by: M. Korpalski, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 23 November 2022, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered Ms Beata Sołowicz to bear her own costs.

Appeal brought on 9 May 2022 by Ahmad Aziz against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2022 in Case T-789/21, Aziz v EEAS

(Case C-315/22 P)

(2023/C 45/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ahmad Aziz (represented by: L. Cuschieri, avukat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

By order of 19 December 2022, The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs.

Appeal brought on 9 May 2022 by Ahmad Aziz against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2022 in Case T-808/21, Aziz v EEAS

(Case C-317/22 P)

(2023/C 45/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ahmad Aziz (represented by: L. Cuschieri, avukat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

By order of 19 December 2022, The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs.

Appeal brought on 2 June 2022 by Ahmad Aziz against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 31 May 2022 in Case T-128/22, Aziz v EDPS

(Case C-357/22 P)

(2023/C 45/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ahmad Aziz (represented by: L. Cuschieri, avukat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Data Protection Supervisor

By order of 19 December 2022, The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs.

Appeal brought on 22 June 2022 by Group Nivelles against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-327/20, Group Nivelles v EUIPO

(Case C-419/22 P)

(2023/C 45/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Group Nivelles NV (represented by: J.A.M. Jonkhout, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Easy Sanitary Solutions BV

By order of 16 December 2022, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Group Nivelles NV to bear its own costs.

Appeal brought on 18 August 2022 by Compass Tex Ltd against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2022 in Case T-704/21, Compass Tex Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-550/22 P)

(2023/C 45/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Compass Tex Ltd (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 7 December 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Criminal proceedings against PY

(Case C-636/22)

(2023/C 45/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Lecce

Criminal proceedings against:

PY

Questions referred

(a)

Does Article 5(3) of Council [Framework Decision] 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, (1) interpreted in the light of Article 1(3) of that decision and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude legislation, such as the Italian legislation, that — in the context of a European arrest warrant procedure for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution — absolutely and automatically precludes the executing judicial authorities from refusing to surrender third-country nationals staying or residing in Italian territory, irrespective of the links those individuals have with that territory?

(b)	If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what criteria and assumptions are used to establish that such links are to be regarded as so significant as to require the executing judicial authority to refuse surrender?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 18 October 2022 — J. P. Mali Kerékpárgyártó és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-653/22)

(2023/C 45/10)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. P. Mali Kerékpárgyártó és Forgalmazó Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Must Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) (1) be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 42(1) thereof is satisfied by Article 84(8) of the az uniós vámjog végrehajtásáról szóló 2017. évi CLII. törvény (Law CLII of 2017 on the application of EU customs law; ‘the Law on customs’) which, in the case of the customs administrative fine which has to be imposed where a customs deficit has been incurred as a result of an offence relating to the correctness of information in the customs declaration, does not allow the customs authorities to assess all the circumstances of the case or the conduct attributable to the trader who lodged the customs declaration, but requires, as a mandatory rule, the imposition of a customs administrative fine equal to 50 % of the established customs deficit, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence committed and the examination and assessment of the liability attributable to that trader?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2022 — BZ v DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG

(Case C-672/22)

(2023/C 45/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: BZ

Defendant and respondent: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG

Questions referred

1.

Must the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), (1) read in conjunction with Article 12(5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the controller (in the present case: the insurer) is also obliged to provide the data subject (in the present case: the policyholder), free of charge, with a first copy of his or her personal data processed by the controller where the data subject does not request the copy in order to pursue the purposes referred to in the first sentence of recital 63 of the GDPR, namely to become aware of the processing of his or her personal data and to be able to verify the lawfulness of that processing, but pursues a different purpose — one which is not related to data protection but is legitimate (in the present case: to verify the effectiveness of increases in a private health insurance premium) — and, if so, is that the case even where the information requested has already been communicated to the policyholder by letter in the procedure for increasing premiums under Paragraph 203 of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts; ‘the VVG’)?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Do personal data within the meaning of point 1 of Article 4 and the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the GDPR include the following information: a) information concerning premium adjustments that a private health insurer has made to a policyholder’s policy, in particular concerning the amount of the adjustment made and the insurance rates affected; and b) the wording of the statements of reasons for the premium adjustments (Paragraph 203(5) of the VVG).

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative and Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative in whole or in part: Does a private health insurance policyholder’s entitlement to the provision of a copy of the personal data processed by the insurer also include entitlement to receive a copy of the riders to the insurance policy which the insurer sent to the policyholder when it notified him or her of a premium increase, as well as the accompanying cover letters and supplementary pages, or does it extend only to the provision of a copy of the insured person’s personal data as such, with the insurer which processes the data deciding the manner in which it compiles the data for the policyholder concerned?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2022 — Gemeente Dinkelland v Ontvanger van de Belastingdienst/Grote ondernemingen, kantoor Zwolle

(Case C-674/22)

(2023/C 45/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeente Dinkelland

Defendant: Ontvanger van de Belastingdienst/Grote ondernemingen, kantoor Zwolle

Questions referred

1.

Must the legal rule that default interest must be reimbursed because there is a right to a refund of taxes levied in breach of EU law be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person has been granted a refund of turnover tax, default interest must be reimbursed to that taxable person in a situation where: a. the refund is the result of administrative errors on the part of the taxable person, as described in this ruling, and for which the inspector cannot be blamed in any way; b. the refund is the result of a recalculation of the allocation key for the deduction of turnover tax on general costs, under the circumstances described in this ruling?

2.	If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, from what day is there a right to the reimbursement of default interest?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2022 — B2 Energy s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-676/22)

(2023/C 45/13)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B2 Energy s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Question referred

Must Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 December 2021 in Case C-154/20, Kemwater ProChemie, EU:C:2021:989, such that a claim for exemption from value added tax (VAT) upon the supply of goods to another EU Member State must be denied, without the tax authorities needing to prove that the supplier of the goods was involved in VAT fraud, if the supplier has failed to prove supply of goods to a specific recipient indicated in the tax documents and having the status of a taxable person in the other Member State, even though, with a view to the facts of the case and the information provided by the taxable person, there is data available to verify that the actual recipient in the other EU Member State did indeed have that status?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Action brought on 4 November 2022 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-679/22)

(2023/C 45/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: U. Małecka, L. Malferrari, E. Manhaeve, L. Armati, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that, by failing to adopt (all) the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1808 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU (2) on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities; or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Directive;

—	order Ireland to pay to the Commission a lump sum based on a daily amount of EUR 5 544,9 per day with the minimum lump sum of EUR 1 376 000.

—

if the failure to fulfil obligations found in paragraph 1 has continued until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order Ireland to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 33 257,2 per day from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings to the date of compliance with its obligations under the Directive; and

—	order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amends Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities. Both the 2010 and 2018 Directives harmonise national legislation concerning audiovisual media traditional TV broadcasts and on-demand services. The 2018 Directive provides rules to shape technological developments and creates a level playing field for emerging audiovisual media.

By letter of 20 November 2020, the Commission addressed a letter of formal notice in circumstances where the Commission had not received from Ireland any notification concerning the adoption of the necessary provisions to comply with the Directive. By letter of 23 September 2021, in the absence of any further notification regarding the transposition of the Directive, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Ireland. Nevertheless, the transposing measures have not yet been adopted by Ireland and, in any event, they have not been notified to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2018, L 303, p. 69.

(2)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010, L 95, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 November 2022 — RegioJet a. s., STUDENT AGENCY k.s. v České dráhy, a.s., Správa železnic, státní organizace, Česká republika, Ministerstvo dopravy

(Case C-700/22)

(2023/C 45/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: RegioJet a. s., STUDENT AGENCY k.s.

Defendants: České dráhy, a.s., Správa železnic, státní organizace, Česká republika, Ministerstvo dopravy

Question referred

Must the last sentence of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a national court must, in proceedings initiated on the application of a third party (competitor), order the recipient to return aid provided in breach of that provision even though (as at the date of the court’s decision) the limitation period for the Commission’s powers pursuant to Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has expired, due to which the aid provided is deemed, pursuant to Article 1(b)(iv) and Article 17(3) of the Regulation, to constitute existing aid?

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 18 November 2022 — Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v The Treasury — Chief Pharmaceuticals Inspector

(Case C-711/22)

(2023/C 45/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Advance Pharma sp. z o.o.

Defendant: The Treasury — Chief Pharmaceuticals Inspector

Question referred

In the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and (2) TEU, does a remedy available in certain legal systems of the Member States of the European Union, in the form of the possibility of seeking revision of proceedings which led to a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights finding a breach of the provisions of the Convention, constitute an essential element of the right to effective judicial protection in civil matters where the legal system of a Member State provides for another legal remedy for the purpose of protecting the judicial rights of a party to proceedings which have resulted in a final judgment?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 November 2022 — LivaNova plc v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others

(Case C-713/22)

(2023/C 45/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: LivaNova plc

Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri

Question referred

Does Article 3 of the Sixth Council Directive [82/891/EEC], (1) which (under Article 22 thereof) is also applicable to a division by the formation of new companies — in so far as it provides that (a) ‘where a liability is not allocated by the draft terms of division and where the interpretation of these terms does not make a decision on its allocation possible, each of the recipient companies shall be jointly and severally liable for it’, and that (b) ‘Member States may provide that such joint and several liability be limited to the net assets allocated to each company’ — preclude an interpretation of the provision of national law in Article 2506-bis, third paragraph, of the Italian Civil Code according to which the joint and several liability of the recipient refers, in relation to ‘liabilities’ not allocated by the draft terms, not only to liabilities of a nature already determined, but also (i) to those identifiable in the harmful consequences, arising after the division, of conduct (by act or omission) occurring before the division itself or (ii) of subsequent conduct developing from it, which has an ongoing unlawful nature and causes environmental damage, the effects of which, at the time of the division, cannot yet be fully determined?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (OJ 1982 L 378, p. 47).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ravensburg Regional Court (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2022 — QR v Mercedes-Benz Bank AG

(Case C-715/22)

(2023/C 45/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Ravensburg Regional Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QR

Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Bank AG

Questions referred

1.

Is it compatible with EU law if, under national law, in the case of a credit agreement linked to a contract of sale, following the effective exercise of the consumer’s right of withdrawal under Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (1) (a) a consumer’s claim against the creditor for repayment of the loan instalments paid does not arise until the consumer has, for his part, returned the object purchased to the creditor or provided proof that he has dispatched it to the creditor? (b) in accordance with the first sentence of Paragraph 358(4), read in conjunction with the first sentence, first option, of Paragraph 357(4), of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code; ‘the BGB’), the consumer is required to return the vehicle to the creditor at the latter’s place of business? (c) there is no default of acceptance of the vehicle on the part of the creditor if the latter is willing to obtain the vehicle by way of advance performance but contests the substantive conditions for a valid withdrawal? (d) an action brought by the consumer for repayment of the loan instalments paid by the consumer after having returned the financed vehicle is to be dismissed as currently unfounded if the creditor has not unduly delayed in accepting the object purchased?

2.	Does it follow from EU law that the national rules and principles set out in points (1)(a) to (d) are inapplicable unless they can be interpreted in accordance with the Directive?

3.

In the event that a consumer’s reliance on his right of withdrawal under Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC may also be regarded as abusive where one of the mandatory particulars provided for in Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has not been duly communicated in the credit agreement or subsequently, can the assessment as an abuse of rights be based on the following factors in particular? (a) The consumer continues to use the financed vehicle pending judicial clarification as to the validity of the withdrawal. (b) The consumer refuses to pay compensation for the use of the vehicle. (c) The agreement has already ended prematurely or by lapse of time when the withdrawal is declared, and the bank has waived its guarantees.

---

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Svilengrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 November 2022 — SISTEM LUX OOD v Teritorialna direktsia Mitnitsa Burgas

(Case C-717/22)

(2023/C 45/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Svilengrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SISTEM LUX OOD

Administrative enforcement authority: Teritorialna direktsia Mitnitsa Burgas

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 42(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, which exhaustively specifies the administrative penalties that can be applied for breaches of customs legislation, read in conjunction with Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as that of Article 233(6) of the Zakon za mitnitsite (Customs Law), which provides for an additional administrative penalty in the form of confiscation of the items involved in the offence (removal of property into State ownership), is unlawful? Is confiscation of the items involved in the offence lawful in those cases where the confiscated assets belong to someone other than the offender?

2.

Is Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, read in conjunction with Article 49(3) of the Charter, to be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as that of Article 233(6) of the Customs Law, which, alongside fines, provides for the additional penalty of confiscation (removal of property into State ownership) of the items involved in the offence, is unlawful in the following cases by reason of constituting a disproportionately punitive interference with the right to property which is not commensurate with the legitimate goal being pursued: both generally, in those cases where the confiscated asset, being the item involved in the offence, belongs to the offender, and in those cases where it belongs to a third party other than the offender, and particularly in those cases where the perpetrator committed the offence not intentionally but through negligence?

3.

Are the provisions of Article 2(1) of Framework Decision 2005/212, (2) read in conjunction with Article 17(1) of the Charter and regard being had to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 [January] 2021 in Case C-393/19, (3) to be interpreted by way of argumentum a fortiori as meaning that they also apply in cases where the act constitutes not a criminal offence but an administrative offence, whereas the difference between the two lies solely in the criterion of ‘large quantities’ in terms of the value of the smuggled items as assumed by the courts? Are the fourth indent of Article 1 of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property and Article 2(4) of Directive 2014/42/EU (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union to be interpreted in this case as meaning that the term ‘confiscation’ refers specifically to a penalty or measure that must be issued by a court and cannot be ordered by an administrative authority, and is a national provision such as that of Article 233(6) of the Customs Law, read in conjunction with Article 231 thereof, in that sense unlawful?

---

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

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).

(3)  EU:C:2021:8.

(4)  Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2022 — HK v Debeka Lebensversicherungsverein aG

(Case C-718/22)

(2023/C 45/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HK

Defendant: Debeka Lebensversicherungsverein aG

Questions referred

1.

Does EU law, in particular Article 31 of the Third Life Assurance Directive (1) and Article 15(1) of the Second Life Assurance Directive, (2) read where appropriate in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation under which full consumer information is only provided with the insurance policy, that is after the consumer has made an application (‘policy model’)? If so: does that of itself substantiate the consumer’s right to object, that is, to demand reversal of the insurance contract? Might the exercise of such a right be prevented by a plea of forfeiture or abuse of rights?

2.	Is an insurer which provided the consumer with no information or with incorrect information on his or her right to object prohibited from relying on forfeiture or abuse of rights to prevent the exercise of the consumer’s resultant rights, including the right to object?

3.	Is an insurer which provided the consumer with no consumer information or with incomplete or incorrect consumer information prohibited from relying on forfeiture or abuse of rights to prevent the exercise of the consumer’s resultant rights, including the right to object?

4.

Does EU law, in particular Article 15(1) of the Second Life Assurance Directive, Article 31 of the Third Life Assurance Directive and Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) read where appropriate in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation or case-law under which a policyholder — who has legitimately exercised his or her right of cancellation — is required to bear the burden of demonstration and proof for the purpose of quantifying the benefits of use derived by the insurer itself? Where such an imposition of the burden of demonstration and proof is permissible, does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, require that the policyholder has in return rights to information or some other assistance from the insurer that will enable him or her to enforce those rights?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

(3)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 November 2022 — criminal proceedings

(Case C-722/22)

(2023/C 45/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 2 of Framework Decision 2005/212, (1) read in conjunction with the third indent of Article 1 thereof, to interpret a national law as meaning that a heavy goods vehicle (tractor unit and trailer) which members of an organised crime group used for the holding and transport of large quantities of excise goods (cigarettes) without tax markings should not be confiscated as an instrumentality?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2022 — I GmbH v J R

(Case C-749/22)

(2023/C 45/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: I GmbH

Respondent of a point of law: J R

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice under which paid annual leave, which was requested by a worker and approved by the employer and which overlaps in time after the leave was approved with a government-ordered quarantine at home where a possible infection is suspected, may not be granted retroactively where the worker is not incapacitated for work on account of illness during that quarantine?

---

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

Appeal brought on 15 December 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 05 October 2022 in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli SpA v Commission

(Case C-764/22 P)

(2023/C 45/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Campa, avvocato, D. Rovetta, avocat, P. Gjørtler, advokat, V. Villante, avvocato)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Declare admissible the present appeal;

—	Set aside the Order of the General Court of October 5, 2022, in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli Spa vs. European Commission and declares the action brought by Airoldi Metalli Spa admissible;

—	Send back the case to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli Spa’s action;

—	Order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the current Appeal, the Appellant relies on the two main grounds of appeals:

First ground of appeal: error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures — Wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.

Second ground of appeal: error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’ — Wrong qualification of facts.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Accessory for wireless remote control)

(Case T-611/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an accessory for wireless remote control - Ground for invalidity - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Facts or evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2023/C 45/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: M. Oleksyn, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: ESSAtech (Přistoupim, Czech Republic)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1070/2020-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1070/2020-3);

2.	Orders EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings both before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

Action brought on 17 September 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-579/22)

(2023/C 45/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Johnston, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Commission’s Decision, set out in a letter of 6 July 2022 (‘the Decision under Challenge’) by which the Commission rejected a request for internal review dated 3 February 2022 brought by the applicant pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 (2) made pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (3) (‘the Taxonomy Regulation’); and,

—	order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge discloses a number of errors of law as to the scope of the Commission’s competence, insofar as the Commission disregarded a number of essential elements of the Taxonomy Regulation when making the Delegated Regulation.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge discloses two manifest errors of assessment as to the scientific evidence concerning combustion of forest biomass for energy.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge discloses several manifest errors of assessment as to the manufacture of OBCs.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge also discloses manifest errors as to the manufacture of bioplastic.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006, L 264, p. 13) (the ‘Aarhus Regulation’).

(2)  Delegated Regulation of 4 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether the economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives (OJ 2021 L 442, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ 2020, L 198, p. 13).

Action brought on 31 October 2022 — SBM Développement v Commission

(Case T-667/22)

(2023/C 45/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SBM Développement SAS (Ecully, France) (represented by: B. Arash and H. Lindström, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the application admissible and well-founded;

—

annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1388 of 23 June 2022 on the unresolved objections regarding the terms and conditions of the authorisation of the biocidal product Pat’Appât Souricide Canadien Foudroyant referred by France and Sweden in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2022, L 208, p. 7);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging infringement of rule of law relating to the application of Article 48 and infringement of Articles 1(1) and 32 of Regulation (EU) 528/2012, (the ‘BPR’). (1)

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 33, 35 and 36 of the BPR.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties — principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 19 of the BPR and manifest error in assessment.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging exceedance of power and infringement of rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties — principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality and Article 16 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, OJ 2012, L 167, p. 1.

Action brought on 28 November 2022 — UniSystems Luxembourg and Unisystems systimata pliroforikis v ESMA

(Case T-750/22)

(2023/C 45/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: UniSystems Luxembourg Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Unisystems systimata pliroforikis monoprosopi anonymi emporiki etairia (Kallithea, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the ESMA to select the tender of the applicants as second in the cascade at the open call for tenders for ICT Consultancy — PROC/2021/12 ‘External Provision of IT Services’, and to award the first cascade contract at the same call for tenders to the first cascade consortium, notified to the applicants by a letter of the ESMA dated 17 September 2022;

—

in addition, order the ESMA to pay the applicants’ damages suffered for the loss of contract in the amount of EUR 3 500 000 for the first two years of the execution of the contract. Should the contract be prolonged further, as specifically provided for, the applicants request the additional amount corresponding to the total duration of the contract, based on an annual amount of EUR 1 750 000, deduction made of any amount eventually corresponding to the gross margin of specific contracts that would be executed by the applicants in their quality as second cascade contractor, all the above amounts bearing interest;

—

alternatively, should your Court find that the applicants are not entitled to the compensation of the full amount of damages incurred because of the illegal attacked decisions of the ESMA, the applicants request damages on account of the loss of opportunity in the amount of EUR 400 000, plus interest;

—	order the ESMA to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Financial Regulation (1) and of the tender specifications: The price offered by the first cascade contractor is abnormally low/specific since profiles are priced below the minimum legal salary in Germany and in Greece. For the same reasons, the applicants argue that there has been an infringement of the tender specifications, and of the principles of transparency and good administration.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of the right to an effective remedy and of an essential procedural requirement. — First part of the second plea of annulment: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons, insufficient motivation; — Second part of the second plea of annulment: Infringement of the principle of the right to an effective remedy and infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

---

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

Action brought on 7 December 2022 — Sboarina v Parliament

(Case T-761/22)

(2023/C 45/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Sboarina (Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the measure entitled ‘Amendment to the determination of the rights to a retirement pension of a former Member of the European Parliament under an Italian mandate’ communicated by letter of 21 September 2022, received on 28 October 2022, sent by the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, with the subject line: ‘Redefinition of the rights to a retirement pension following Decision No 150 of 3 March 2022 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati [(Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy)]’, of which the applicant was notified, and, consequently, annul the redefinition and recalculation of the life annuity paid to the applicant by the European Parliament, and any other prior and/or consecutive act,

—	declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity paid by the European Parliament in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued at the time of the first payment,

—	order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment,

—	order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment in this case and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the powers reserved to the Bureau of the European Parliament (Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament). — The applicant claims that the contested measure is unlawful on the ground that it was adopted by the Head of Unit of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit without the necessary involvement of the Bureau of the European Parliament, which is in fact the body that takes financial, organisational and administrative decisions on matters concerning the Members of the European Parliament under Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) (1); insufficient statement of reasons in the contested act. — The applicant claims that the contested measure is unlawful since it fails to provide a sufficient statement of reasons, in breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measure was adopted without a valid legal basis; incorrect application of Annex III to the PEAM Rules (2) and of Articles 74 and 75 of the IMS. (3) — The applicant claims that the contested measure is unlawful on the ground that it was adopted without a valid legal basis, since Article 2(1) of Annex III to the PEAM Rules was repealed following the entry into force of the Statute for Members (Articles 74 and 75 of the IMS).

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 75 of the IMS and of Annexes I, II and III to the PEAM Rules. Infringement of Article 28 of the Statute for Members and of the applicant’s entitlement to a pension. — The applicant claims that the contested act is unlawful on the ground that the European Parliament misinterpreted and misapplied Article 75 of the IMS and Article 2(1) of Annex III to the PEAM Rules. The applicant submits that those provisions must be interpreted as meaning that the reference, in Article 75 of the IMS, to Annexes I, II and III to the PEAM Rules, and in particular to Article 2(1), must necessarily be understood as referring to the pension applicable when that Annex III was in force. By contrast, the abovementioned provisions have been interpreted and applied by the Parliament as allowing the applicant’s pension to be amended an indefinite number of times, in clear breach of Article 28 of the Statute for Members and of the principles of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty. — In the end, even if the interpretation of the European Parliament were to be adopted, Article 2 of Annex III to the PEAM Rules meets a limit under EU law and, in any event, concerns only that amount and the conditions for paying the pension which cannot, nevertheless, affect the entitlement to a pension itself. However, in the present case, the measure applied to the applicant, through the automatic transposition of Decision 150/2022, not only amended the applicant’s entitlement to a pension, by affecting the conditions relating to the constitution of that entitlement, but presents clear signs of incompatibility with EU law.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty, of the protection of acquired rights and of equality. — The applicant claims that the contested measure is unlawful on the ground that, by providing for the automatic transposition of Decision 150/2022 and the resulting recalculation of the applicant’s pension using a new, retroactive method with permanent effects that directly affects the entitlement to a pension, the European Parliament infringed the principle of legal certainty, which precludes a violation of acquired rights, in line, furthermore, with the rationale of Article 28 of the Statute for Members and Article 75 of the IMS, as well as the principle of legitimate expectations, which does not allow pensions to be diminished or changed. In addition, in so far as it affects only former Italian Members of the European Parliament, who are the sole addressees of a measure that recalculates retroactively, using a contributive method, pensions accrued while the contributive method had not yet been introduced in Italy, that recalculation presents clear signs of infringement of the principle of equality too, in that it amounts to unlawful discrimination compared to former Members of the European Parliament from the other Member States as well as the Members of the European Parliament elected after 2009 and all other citizens in general, who are not subject to any such reductions.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 17 of the Charter. Breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Disproportionate nature of the sacrifice imposed. — The applicant submits that the contested measure, which reduced, through the recalculation, the amount of the pension for the position of Member of the European Parliament to which he was entitled as originally paid, directly affects his right of ownership. He claims, in addition, that interference occurred without an effective statement of reasons and that it imposed a disproportionate and unreasonable sacrifice.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 21 and 25 of the Charter, of Article 10 TFEU and of Article 15 of the European Pillar of Social Rights. — The applicant submits that, since it transposed a measure for the recalculation of pensions which, on account of the way in which it was designed, affects primarily subjects who are older, the European Parliament, by the contested act, is itself in breach of Articles 21 and 25 of the Charter, of Article 10 TFEU and of Article 15 of the European Pillar of Social Rights and of Directive 2000/78/EC. (4)

---

(1)  OJ 2016 C 202, p. 389.

(2)  Enlarged Bureau Decision of 4 November 1981; Bureau Decision of 24 and 25 May 1982, as amended on 13 September 1995 and 6 June 2005.

(3)  Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2009 C 159, p. 1).

(4)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

Action brought on 8 December 2022 — Azalee Cosmetics v EUIPO — L’Oréal (UK) (LA CRÈME LIBRE)

(Case T-765/22)

(2023/C 45/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Azalee Cosmetics (Paris, France) (represented by: I. Tribouillet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 trade mark LA CREME LIBRE — Application for registration No 18 252 904

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2022 in Case R 229/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs and reimburse the applicant for all the costs incurred for the purposes of the opposition and appeal proceedings, including the costs of the appeal.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 8 December 2022 — Canel Ferreiro v Council

(Case T-766/22)

(2023/C 45/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria Canel Ferreiro (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: N. Maes, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	uphold the present action;

—	declare it admissible and well founded;

—	annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Council of the European Union of 25 November 2021 imposing the disciplinary penalty of a reprimand;

—	annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Council of the European Union of 01 September 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint No 2022_009 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

—

annul administrative investigation EN-2101 and the investigation report of 28 May 2021 of the Legal Advisers to the Administration of the Directorate-General Organisational Development and Services — Human Resources Directorate of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union concerning the applicant;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea, alleging illegality of the administrative investigation. According to the applicant, the investigators went beyond the factual and temporal scope of the powers granted to them by the appointing authority.

2.

Second plea, alleging illegality of the decision to reject the complaint. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the principle of sound administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, was not respected and that the applicant’s case was not handled impartially.

3.	Third plea, alleging failure to respect the rights of the defence. The applicant submits that no details regarding the claim made against her were given in respect of the finding made against the applicant.

4.

Fourth plea, alleging lack of evidence. According to the applicant, the infringements of Articles 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union have not been proved to the requisite legal standard, so that a disciplinary penalty of a reprimand cannot be imposed on her on the basis of those infringements.

Action brought on 10 December 2022 — Fibrecycle v EUIPO (BACK-2-NATURE)

(Case T-772/22)

(2023/C 45/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fibrecycle Pty Ltd (Helensvale, Australia) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark BACK-2-NATURE — Application for registration No 1 485 655

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2022 in Case R 1699/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 12 December 2022 — Contorno Textil v EUIPO — Harmont & Blaine (GILBERT TECKEL)

(Case T-773/22)

(2023/C 45/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Contorno Textil, SL (Almedinilla, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca and C. Sotomayor Garcia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harmont & Blaine SpA (Caivano, 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 figurative mark GILBERT TECKEL — Application for registration No 18 148 635

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2022 in Case R 372/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

alter the contested decision by stating that application for registration no18 148 635 must be granted for all goods in class 25 due to the lack of likelihood of confusion between the trade marks under comparison, after giving due consideration to the differences between the signs; order EUIPO to pay the costs; or, in the alternative,

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty.

Action brought on 13 December 2022 — TP v Commission

(Case T-776/22)

(2023/C 45/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TP (represented by: T. Faber, F. Bonke and I. Sauvagnac, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

—

annul the decision issued by the Commission’s authorising officer by delegation, the Director General of DG Reform, on its exclusion from participating in award procedures governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) from being selected for implementing European Union funds and from participating in award procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877, (2) adopted on 1 October 2022 and notified to the applicant on 3 October 2022 (hereafter the ‘Contested Decision’);

—	in the alternative, substitute the Contested Decision with a moderate financial penalty commensurate with the applicant’s limited involvement in the execution of the Project;

—	order the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicant for the loss suffered due to the Contested Decision; and

—	in any event, order the European Commission to pay for the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision breaches Article 136(1) of Regulation 2018/1046 by failing to establish the relevant facts necessary for the issuance of an exclusion decision against the applicant, not the least by failing to establish that the applicant — individually — would have committed significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the implementation of the contract, concluded between the consortium it was part of and the Commission, as required under Article 136(1) of Regulation 2018/1046.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision breaches Article 136(3) of the Regulation 2018/1046 and the general principle of proportionality, in that: — the exclusion sanction against the applicant does not achieve the purpose of the Early Detection and Exclusion System provided for in Regulation 2018/1046, — the exclusion sanction against the applicant disregards its subordinate role in the execution of the project of construction of sewerage and water distribution networks in the city of Famagusta (Cyprus).

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision breaches the general principle of legal certainty by retroactively upholding an exclusion penalty under Regulation 2018/1046, which is more severe than the financial penalty that the aforementioned authorising officer would have upheld under Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No. 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (3)

---

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

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 of 26 November 2018 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund, and repealing Regulation (EU) 2015/323 (OJ 2018 L 307, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

Action brought on 12 December 2022 — Desimo v EUIPO — Red Bull (EL TORO ROJO)

(Case T-778/22)

(2023/C 45/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Desimo, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. Estima Martins, J. Mioludo and D. Simões, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria)

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 EL TORO ROJO — Application for registration No 18 026 515

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2022 in Case R 326/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and fully dismiss the opposition proceeding No B003089768;

—	grant the registration of the trade mark at issue to all the designated goods and services;

—	order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 13 December 2022 — Transport Werk v EUIPO — Haus & Grund Deutschland (Haus & Grund)

(Case T-779/22)

(2023/C 45/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Transport Werk GmbH (Offenbach am Main, Germany) (represented by: D. Donath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haus & Grund Deutschland Zentralverband der Deutschen Haus-, Wohnungs- und Grundeigentümer e.V. (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Haus & Grund — EU trade mark No 7 161 052

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2022 in Case R 84/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to cancel EU word mark No 7 161 052 ‘Haus & Grund’ from the EU trade mark register for all goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 42 and 45, namely:

Class 9: Data carriers; computer software for the buying, selling, administration, rental, construction and management of buildings, installations and facilities;

Class 16: Printed matter;

Class 35: Advertising; business management services; business administration; business consultancy and advisory services; office functions; research, collation and systematic compilation of news, including court judgements and decisions and regulations of all kinds;

Class 36: Real estate affairs; expert opinions in connection with insurance, financial affairs, real estate affairs and monetary affairs;

Class 38: News agencies, including court judgements and decisions and regulations of all kinds;

Class 42: Expert technical opinions; technical consultancy; creation of computer software for the buying, selling, rental, construction, administration and management of buildings, installations and equipment; creation of computer software to optimise the operation, cost-effectiveness, utilisation, marketing and value retention of property and equipment;

Class 45: Legal services;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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

Action brought on 13 December 2022 — TUI Holding v EUIPO — inCruises International (INCRUISES)

(Case T-780/22)

(2023/C 45/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TUI Holding Spain, SLU (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: H. Fangmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: inCruises International LLC (San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark INCRUISES — Application for registration No 18 034 630

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2022 in Case R 1081/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 33(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 13 December 2022 — Madre Querida and Others v Commission

(Case T-781/22)

(2023/C 45/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Madre Querida, SL (Burela, Spain), Hermanos Galdo, SL (Burela), Pesqueras Breogan, SL (Burela), Breso Pesca, SL (Burela), Casariego 99, SL (Ribadeo, Spain), Pesquerías Mapa, SL (Gozon, Spain), Virgen de Pastoriza, SL (Burela), Pesca Norte Breogan, SL (Burela), Basanta Frá Hnos, CB (Burela), Armapesca Burela, SL (Burela), Deycon Pesca, SL (Viveiro, Spain), Larrabaste, SLU (Cariño, Spain), Pesqueras Canoura, SL (Burela), Pesqueras Luarquesa, SL (Navia, Spain), Pastor Nauta, CB (Cervo, Spain), Villaselan 99, SL (Tapia de Casariego, Spain), Organización de Productores Pesqueros del Puerto de Burela (LUGO) (Burela) (represented by: Á. Givaja Sanz, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul Article 2 and Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 (1) of the Commission of 15 September 2022, determining the existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur;

—

alternatively, and in addition, declare Article 9(6) and (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 establishing specific conditions for fishing for deep-sea stocks in the north-east Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the north-east Atlantic and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 2347/2002 (the basic Regulation), to be invalid pursuant to Article 277 TFEU; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 2 and Annex II of the Implementing Regulation infringe general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of proportionality. Those provisions infringe the principle of non-discrimination by treating different gears identically and by treating the waters of the north-east Atlantic differently. They infringe the principle of proportionality by exceeding the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to implement the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy.

2.	Second plea in law, in the alternative to the first plea in law, alleging that paragraphs 6 and 9 of Article 9 of the basic Regulation are unlawful, as those provisions are contrary to general principles of EU law, in so far as they infringe Article 291 TFEU and the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 of 15 September 2022 determining the existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur (OJ 2022 L 242, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 establishing specific conditions for fishing for deep-sea stocks in the north-east Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the north-east Atlantic and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 (OJ 2016 L 354, p. 1).

Action brought on 16 December 2022 — France v Commission

(Case T-785/22)

(2023/C 45/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: T. Stéhelin, B. Fodda and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul the notice of Open Competition EPSO/AST/154/22 — assistants (AST 3) in the fields of financial management, accounting and treasury, public procurement, graphic design and visual content production, social and digital media, and webmaster, published 22 September 2022 in the Official Journal of the European Union;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-555/22, France v Commission.

Action brought on 16 December 2022 — PB v SRB

(Case T-789/22)

(2023/C 45/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the decision of 15 February 2022;

—	annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 6 September 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

—	order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 in respect of the harm suffered as a result of the breach of his right to be heard and of his rights of defence;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) rejecting his request for assistance, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence, together with procedural defects. In the first part of the plea, the applicant complains of a breach of the principle of transparency, the impossibility of believing in the independence of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’), and the refusal to grant access to the essential information and documents in the case file. In the second part of the plea, the applicant complains of a breach of the principle of confidentiality in processing his request for assistance, the failure to observe procedural guarantees, the failure to implement a fair and objective procedure and, lastly, infringement of Articles 4.2 and 4.3 of the SRB Policy on preventing harassment. In the third part of the plea, the applicant complains of the lack of objective and subjective impartiality and of the presence of conflicts of interest which vitiated the examination of his request for assistance. In the fourth part of the plea, the applicant complains of a breach of his right to be heard in an effective manner by the AECE.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the duty to provide assistance and have regard for the welfare of staff, and maladministration.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.

Action brought on 21 December 2022 — Quatrotec Electrónica v EUIPO — Woxter Technology (WOXTER)

(Case T-792/22)

(2023/C 45/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Quatrotec Electrónica, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, J. Rodríguez-Fuensalida y Carnicero, P. Ramells Higueras, A. Figuerola Moure and P. Muñoz Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Woxter Technology Co. Ltd (Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark WOXTER — EU trade mark No 3 217 031

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 September 2022 in Case R 0323/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in the contested decision;

—	order the revocation of EU trade mark No 3 217 031 WOXTER (figurative mark) in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9, 37 and 39;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs associated with these proceedings, including the representation costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 21 December 2022 — TU v Parliament

(Case T-793/22)

(2023/C 45/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of [confidential] (1) not to renew his contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant;

—	annul the implied rejection, which occurred on [confidential] and, in the alternative, at the latest on [confidential], of his request formally made on [confidential] to be granted the status of informant and to be protected under Articles 22a, 22b and 22c of the Staff Regulations;

—	annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint that was notified to him on [confidential];

—	declare the Parliament guilty of infringement of the rules applicable to the status of informant and of breach of the protection conferred by that status;

—	order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 200 000 by way of damages for the prejudicial effects suffered as a result of non-compliance with Articles 22a to 22c of the Staff Regulations and the applicable internal rules;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs;

—	in the alternative and if, contrary to all probability, the action brought by the applicant is dismissed, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging non-compliance with Article 22c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) during the pre-litigation procedure.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the protective rules attached to his status of informant, Article 22c of the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the internal rules implementing that article, and breach of the duty to provide advice and assistance to whistleblowers.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4 of the internal rules implementing Article 22c and, in the alternative, that the Parliament’s interpretation of those rules is unlawful or that those rules are inadequate and insufficient.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of confidentiality and protection of the identity of the informant.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, unlawful positive discrimination between accredited parliamentary assistants and unlawful negative discrimination in relation to other informants, breach of the protection conferred on informants, infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to provide assistance and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, and breach of the right to benefit from a procedure that has at least an appearance of objectivity.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging an abuse of process committed by the administration in order to circumvent its obligation to ensure that the applicant suffers no prejudicial effects as a result of having disclosed information in accordance with Article 22b of the Staff Regulations.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — C & J Clark International v Commission

(Cases T-790/16 and T-861/16) (1)

(2023/C 45/42)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2022 — Deichmann v Commission

(Case T-154/17) (1)

(2023/C 45/43)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2022 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission

(Case T-155/17) (1)

(2023/C 45/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2022 — FLA Europe v Commission

(Case T-347/17) (1)

(2023/C 45/45)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Nike European Operations Netherlands and Others v Commission

(Case T-351/17) (1)

(2023/C 45/46)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Jana shoes and Others v Commission

(Case T-360/17) (1)

(2023/C 45/47)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission

(Case T-24/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/48)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Wendel and Others v Commission

(Case T-124/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/49)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2022 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission

(Case T-126/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2022 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission

(Case T-127/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission

(Case T-130/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/52)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Deichmann v Commission

(Case T-131/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/53)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Deichmann-Shoes UK v Commission

(Case T-141/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/54)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Buffalo — Boots v Commission

(Case T-142/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/55)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2022 — Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission

(Case T-157/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/56)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — Eland Oil & Gas v Commission

(Case T-471/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/57)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — W.S. Atkins International v Commission

(Case T-758/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/58)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — Experian Finance 2012 v Commission

(Case T-771/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/59)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2022 — Rigid Plastic Containers Finance and RPC Pisces Holdings v Commission

(Case T-781/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/60)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — St Schrader Holding Company UK v Commission

(Case T-782/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/61)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2022 — KPMG Advisory v Commission

(Case T-614/21) (1)

(2023/C 45/62)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2022 — NT v EMA

(Case T-806/21) (1)

(2023/C 45/63)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.