ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 155
European flag  

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 66
2 May 2023

Contents

page

 

IV   Notices

 

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

 

Court of Justice of the European Union

2023/C 155/01

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 155/02

Case C-682/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Les Mousquetaires, ITM Entreprises SAS v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Decision of the European Commission ordering an inspection — Remedies against the conduct of the inspection — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 19 — Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Article 3 — Recording of interviews conducted by the Commission during its investigations — Starting point of the Commission’s investigation)

2

2023/C 155/03

Case C-690/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon, Achats Marchandises Casino SAS (AMC) v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Decision of the European Commission ordering an inspection — Remedies against the conduct of the inspection — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 19 — Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Article 3 — Recording of interviews conducted by the Commission during its investigations — Starting point of the Commission’s investigation)

3

2023/C 155/04

Case C-693/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Intermarché Casino Achats v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Decision of the European Commission ordering an inspection — Remedies against the conduct of the inspection — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 19 — Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Article 3 — Recording of interviews conducted by the Commission during its investigations — Starting point of the Commission’s investigation)

4

2023/C 155/05

Case C-695/20, Fenix International: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Fenix International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Implementing power of the Council of the European Union — Article 291(2) TFEU — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 28 and 397 — Taxable person, acting in his or her own name but on behalf of another person — Provider of services by electronic means — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 — Article 9a — Presumption — Validity)

4

2023/C 155/06

Case C-31/21, Eurocostruzioni: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Eurocostruzioni Srl v Regione Calabria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural Funds — Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 — Eligibility of expenditure — Requirement of proof of payment — Receipted invoices — Accounting documents of equivalent probative value — Construction undertaken directly by the final beneficiary)

5

2023/C 155/07

Case C-46/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators v Aquind Ltd (Appeal — Energy — Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Article 17 — Request for exemption relating to an electricity interconnector — Refusal decision from the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) — Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 — Article 19 — Board of Appeal of ACER — Intensity of the review)

6

2023/C 155/08

Case C-78/21, PrivatBank and Others: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — AS PrivatBank, A, B, Unimain Holdings Limited v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 56 and 63 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — National measure imposing an obligation on a credit institution to terminate business relationships with non-nationals or no longer to enter into such relationships — Restriction — Article 65(1)(b) TFEU — Justification — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Proportionality)

6

2023/C 155/09

Case C-119/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — PlasticsEurope v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, ClientEarth (Appeal — Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Annex XIV — List of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV — Updating of the entry of the substance bisphenol A as a substance of very high concern)

7

2023/C 155/10

Case C-268/21, Norra Stockholm Bygg: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Norra Stockholm Bygg AB v Per Nycander AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 6(3) and (4) — Lawfulness of processing — Production of a document containing personal data in civil court proceedings — Article 23(1)(f) and (j) — Protection of judicial independence and judicial proceedings — Enforcement of civil law claims — Requirements to be complied with — Having regard to the interests of the data subjects — Balancing of the opposing interests involved — Article 5 — Minimisation of personal data — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 7 — Right to respect for private life — Article 8 — Right to protection of personal data — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Principle of proportionality)

8

2023/C 155/11

Case C-270/21, A (Nursery school teacher): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Recognition of professional qualifications in a Member State — Directive 2005/36/EC — Right to exercise the profession of nursery school teacher — Regulated profession — Right of access to the profession on the basis of a diploma issued in the home Member State — Professional qualification obtained in a third country)

9

2023/C 155/12

Case C-354/21, Registrų centras: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas -Lithuania) — R.J.R. v Registrų centras VĮ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European Certificate of Succession — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 1(2)(l) — Scope — Article 68 — Contents of the European Certificate of Succession — Article 69(5) — Effects of the European Certificate of Succession — Succession immovable property located in a Member State other than that of the succession — Registration of that immovable property in the land register of that Member State — Legal requirements for such registration under the law of that Member State — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 — Mandatory nature of Form V in Annex 5 to that implementing regulation)

10

2023/C 155/13

Case C-375/21, Sdruzhenie Za Zemyata — dostap do pravosadie and Others: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Sdruzhenie Za Zemyata — dostap do pravosadie, Тhe Green Тank — grazhdansko sdruzhenie s nestopanska tsel — Hellenic Republic, NS v Izpalnitelen director na Izpalnitelna agentsia po okolna sreda, TETS Maritsa iztok 2 EAD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Ambient air quality — Directive 2008/50/EC — Articles 13 and 23 — Limit values for the protection of human health — Exceedance — Air quality plan — Directive 2010/75/EU — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Update of a permit to operate a power plant — Emission limit values — Article 15(4) — Application for a derogation setting less strict emission limit values — Significant pollution — Article 18 — Compliance with environmental quality standards — Obligations of the competent authority)

11

2023/C 155/14

Case C-394/21, Bursa Română de Mărfuri: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Bursa Română de Mărfuri SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Reglementare în domeniul Energiei (ANRE) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market for electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Regulation (EU) 2019/943 — Article 1(b) and (c) and Article 3 — Principles regarding the operation of electricity markets — Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 — Article 5(1) — Nominated electricity market operator — National legal monopoly for day-ahead and intraday trading services — National legislation providing for a monopoly for short-, medium- and long-term wholesale trading of electricity)

12

2023/C 155/15

Joined Cases C-410/21 and C-661/21, DRV Intertrans and Others: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against FU, DRV Intertrans BV (C-410/21), and Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN (C-661/21) (References for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Legislation applicable — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 5 — A1 certificate — Provisional withdrawal — Binding effect — Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 13(1)(b)(i) — Persons normally pursuing an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States — Applicability of the legislation of the Member State in which the registered office is situated — Concept of registered office — Undertaking which has obtained a Community licence for transport under Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 — Effect — Licence fraudulently obtained or relied on)

13

2023/C 155/16

Case C-432/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(1) to (3), Article 12(1)(a) to (d), Article 13(1)(a) and Article 16(1) — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Article 4(1), Article 5(a), (b) and (d) and Article 9(1) — Forest management based on good practice — Forest management plans — Aarhus Convention — Access to justice — Article 6(1)(b) and Article 9(2) — Examination of the lawfulness, as regards the substance and procedure, of forest management plans — Right of environmental organisations to bring an action)

14

2023/C 155/17

Case C-477/21, MÁV-START: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Törvényszék — Hungary) — IH v MÁV-START Vasúti Személyszállító Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2003/88/EC — Articles 3 and 5 — Daily rest and weekly rest — National legislation providing for a minimum weekly rest period of 42 hours — Obligation to grant daily rest — Rules for granting)

15

2023/C 155/18

Case C-571/21, RWE Power: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — RWE Power Aktiengesellschaft v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Article 14(1)(a) — Second and third sentences of Article 21(3) — Electricity used to produce electricity and to maintain the ability to produce electricity — Exemption — Scope — Opencast mining operations — Electricity used in order to operate fuel bunkers and means of transport)

16

2023/C 155/19

Case C-604/21, Vapo Atlantic: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Braga — Portugal) — Vapo Atlantic SA v Entidade Nacional para o Setor Energético E.P.E. (ENSE) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Information procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Directive 98/34/EC — Article 1(4) — Concept of other requirements — Article 1(11) — Concept of technical regulation — Article 8(1) — Obligation on the Member States to notify the European Commission of any draft technical regulation — National provision providing for the incorporation of a certain percentage of biofuels into motor fuels — Third indent of Article 10(1) — Concept of safeguard clause provided for in a binding EU act — Second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/30/EC not included)

17

2023/C 155/20

Case C-664/21, Nec Plus Ultra Cosmetics AG: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Nec Plus Ultra Cosmetics AG v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 138(1) — Exemptions for intra-community transactions — Supply of goods — Principles of tax neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality — Compliance with substantive requirements — Time limit for the submission of evidence)

18

2023/C 155/21

Case C-666/21, Åklagarmyndigheten: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland — Sweden) — AI v Åklagarmyndigheten (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Scope — Article 2(1)(a) — Article 3(h) — Notion of carriage by road of goods — Notion of maximum permissible mass — Vehicle fitted out as a temporary private living space and for the non-commercial loading of goods — Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 — Tachographs — Article 23(1) — Requirement for regular inspections by approved workshops)

18

2023/C 155/22

Case C-684/21, Papierfabriek Doetinchem: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Papierfabriek Doetinchem BV v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 8(1) — Features of appearance of a product dictated solely by its technical function — Criteria for assessment — Existence of alternative designs — Proprietor also holding a multitude of alternative protected designs — Multicolour appearance of a product not reflected in the registration of the design concerned)

19

2023/C 155/23

Case C-695/21, Recreatieprojecten Zeeland and Others: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Legislation of a Member State laying down a general ban on advertising by gaming establishments — Automatic derogation from that ban for establishments holding an operating licence issued by the authorities of that Member State — No possibility of derogation for establishments located in another Member State)

20

2023/C 155/24

Case C-714/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Francoise Grossetête v European Parliament (Appeal — Law governing the institutions — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme — Individual decision fixing additional voluntary pension rights — Plea of illegality — Competence of the Bureau of the Parliament — Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Legal certainty)

21

2023/C 155/25

Joined Cases C-715/21 P and C-716/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Gerardo Galeote (C-715/21 P), Graham Watson (C-716/21 P) v European Parliament (Appeal — Law governing the institutions — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme — Individual decision fixing additional voluntary pension rights — Plea of illegality — Competence of the Bureau of the Parliament — Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Legal certainty)

21

2023/C 155/26

Case C-760/21, Kwizda Pharma: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Kwizda Pharma GmbH v Landeshauptmann von Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food safety — Food — Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 — Article 2(2)(g) — Concept of food for special medical purposes — Other particular nutritional requirements — Dietary management — Modification of the diet — Nutrients — Use under medical supervision — Ingredients not absorbed or metabolised in the alimentary canal — Distinction in relation to medicinal products — Distinction in relation to food supplements)

22

2023/C 155/27

Case C-16/22, Staatsanwaltschaft Graz (Düsseldorf Tax Office for Criminal Tax Matters): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Graz — Austria) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and execution of a European Investigation Order concerning MS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2014/41/EU — European Investigation Order — Article 1(1) — Concept of judicial authority — Article 2(c) — Concept of issuing authority — Order issued by a tax authority without being validated by a judge or public prosecutor — Tax authority assuming the rights and the obligations of the public prosecutor’s office in the context of a criminal tax investigation)

23

2023/C 155/28

Case C-520/22, Horezza: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rada Úradu pre verejné obstarávanie — Slovakia) — HOREZZA a.s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal — Appellate body of a national supervisory authority for public procurement procedures — Independence — Status of a third party in relation to the authority which adopted the contested decision — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

24

2023/C 155/29

Case C-521/22, Konštrukta — Defence: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rada Úradu pre verejné obstarávanie — Slovakia) — KONŠTRUKTA — Defence a.s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal — Appellate body of a national supervisory authority for public procurement procedures — Independence — Status of a third party in relation to the authority which adopted the contested decision — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

24

2023/C 155/30

Case C-657/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova (Romania) lodged on 18 October 2022 — SC Bitulpetrolium Serv SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Prahova — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

25

2023/C 155/31

Case C-782/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 14 December 2022 — XX v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

26

2023/C 155/32

Case C-791/22, Hauptzollamt Braunschweig: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 December 2022 — G.A. v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

26

2023/C 155/33

Case C-11/23, Eventmedia Soluciones: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 12 January 2023 — Eventmedia Soluciones, S.L. v Air Europa Líneas Aéreas, S.A.U.

27

2023/C 155/34

Case C-18/23, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 18 January 2023 — F S.A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

27

2023/C 155/35

Case C-21/23, Lindenapotheke: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2023 — ND v DR

28

2023/C 155/36

Case C-27/23, Hocinx: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 23 January 2023 — FV v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

29

2023/C 155/37

Case C-33/23, Schwarzder: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 24 January 2023 — AA AG v VM, AG GmbH

29

2023/C 155/38

Case C-34/23, Getin Noble Bank: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (Poland) lodged on 24 January 2023 — RF v Getin Noble Bank S.A.

30

2023/C 155/39

Case C-37/23, Giocevi: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2023 — Agenzia delle Entrate v PR

30

2023/C 155/40

Case C-45/23, MS Amlin Insurance: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Ondernemingsrechtbank Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 31 January 2023 — A, B, C, D v MS Amlin Insurance SE

31

2023/C 155/41

Case C-58/23, Abboudnam: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 6 February 2023 — Y.N. v Republika Slovenija

31

2023/C 155/42

Case C-67/23, W. GmbH: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 — Criminal proceedings against S.Z.

32

2023/C 155/43

Case C-79/23, Kaszamás: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 February 2023 — FJ v Agrárminiszter

33

2023/C 155/44

Case C-80/23, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 February 2023 — Criminal proceedings against V. S.

34

2023/C 155/45

Case C-86/23, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — E.N.I., Y.K.I. v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

34

2023/C 155/46

Case C-88/23, Parfümerie Akzente: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 15 February 2023 — Parfümerie Akzente GmbH v KTF Organisation AB

35

2023/C 155/47

Case C-99/23 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-275/19, PNB Banka v ECB

36

2023/C 155/48

Case C-100/23 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-301/19, PNB Banka v ECB

37

2023/C 155/49

Case C-101/23 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-330/19, PNB Banka v ECB

37

2023/C 155/50

Case C-102/23 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-230/20, PNB Banka v ECB

38

2023/C 155/51

Case C-103/23 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2023 by Trasta Komercbanka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2022 in Case T-698/16, Trasta Komercbanka and Others v ECB

39

2023/C 155/52

Case C-124/23 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2023 by E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-260/21, E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. v European Commission

40

2023/C 155/53

Case C-127/23 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2023 by FALKE KGaA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-306/21, Falke KGaA v European Commission

41

2023/C 155/54

Case C-147/23: Action brought on 10 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

42

2023/C 155/55

Case C-149/23: Action brought on 14 March 2023 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

43

2023/C 155/56

Case C-150/23: Action brought on 13 March 2023 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

44

2023/C 155/57

Case C-152/23: Action brought on 13 March 2023 — European Commission v Czech Republic

45

2023/C 155/58

Case C-154/23: Action brought on 14 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

45

2023/C 155/59

Case C-155/23: Action brought on 14 March 2023 — European Commission v Hungary

46

 

General Court

2023/C 155/60

Case T-100/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Sánchez-Gavito León v Council and Commission (International Cotton Advisory Committee — Decision (EU) 2017/876 — Staff of an international organisation to which the European Union has acceded — Agreement on the applicant’s conditions of departure — Actions for failure to act — Absence in part of invitation to act — No standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility — Liability — Causal link)

48

2023/C 155/61

Case T-235/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Bulgaria v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Bulgaria — Promotional activities — OLAF investigation report — Conformity clearance — Obligation to state reasons)

48

2023/C 155/62

Case T-372/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Sympatex Technologies v EUIPO — Liwe Española (Sympathy Inside) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Sympathy Inside — Earlier EU word mark INSIDE. — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No alteration of distinctive character)

49

2023/C 155/63

Case T-426/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Assaad v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Errors of assessment — Retroactivity — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Force of res judicata)

50

2023/C 155/64

Case T-759/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — The a2 Milk Company (A 2) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark A 2 — Earlier international registration — Figurative mark THE a2 MILK COMPANY THE a2 MILK COMPANY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

51

2023/C 155/65

Case T-763/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — SE v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Commission’s pilot programme for recruiting junior administrators — Rejection of application — Eligibility conditions — Criterion of a maximum of three years of professional experience — Equal treatment — Discrimination based on age)

51

2023/C 155/66

Case T-65/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — PS v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Total and permanent invalidity — Occupational nature of the disease — Contract concluded with an insurance company — Extent of the obligations to be met by the EIB)

52

2023/C 155/67

Case T-70/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Novasol v ECHA (REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Request for evidence demonstrating the status of a SME — Refusal to provide certain information — Decision ordering the recovery of the uncollected amount of the total fees payable and imposing an administrative charge — Concept of related undertaking — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Obligation to state reasons)

52

2023/C 155/68

Case T-90/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Kande Mupompa v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered — Right to be heard — Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded — Manifest error of assessment — Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

53

2023/C 155/69

Case T-92/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Amisi Kumba v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered — Right to be heard — Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded — Manifest error of assessment — Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

54

2023/C 155/70

Case T-93/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Ramazani Shadary v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered — Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded — Change of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

54

2023/C 155/71

Case T-95/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Kanyama v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered — Right to be heard — Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded — Manifest error of assessment — Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

55

2023/C 155/72

Case T-96/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023– Kampete v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered — Right to be heard — Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded — Manifest error of assessment — Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

56

2023/C 155/73

Case T-98/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Boshab v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered — Right to be heard — Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded — Manifest error of assessment — Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

56

2023/C 155/74

Case T-172/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Gönenç v EUIPO — Solar (termorad ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TERMORAD ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR — Earlier Benelux word mark THERMRAD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

57

2023/C 155/75

Case T-212/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Prigozhina v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list — Family of a person responsible for actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, or stability or security in Ukraine — Concept of association — Error of assessment)

58

2023/C 155/76

Case T-170/22 R-RENV: Order of the President of the General Court of 28 February 2023 — Telefónica de España v Commission (Interim relief — Public supply contracts — Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA) — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case)

59

2023/C 155/77

Case T-743/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Mazepin v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in respect of Russian actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Application for interim measures — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing up of interests)

59

2023/C 155/78

Case T-83/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — VP v Parliament

61

2023/C 155/79

Case T-90/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — D’Agostino v ECB

61

2023/C 155/80

Case T-103/23: Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Stan v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

63

2023/C 155/81

Case T-108/23: Action brought on 22 February 2023 — UY v Commission

63

2023/C 155/82

Case T-109/23: Action brought on 23 February 2023 — UY v Commission

65

2023/C 155/83

Case T-119/23: Action brought on 3 March 2023 — Insider v EUIPO — Alaj (in Insajderi)

66

2023/C 155/84

Case T-121/23: Action brought on 3 March 2023 — UZ v Commission and ECHA

67

2023/C 155/85

Case T-122/23: Action brought on 6 March 2023 — Ege İhracatçıları Birliği and Others v Commission

68

2023/C 155/86

Case T-126/23: Action brought on 9 March 2023 — VC v EU-OSHA

69

2023/C 155/87

Case T-127/23: Action brought on 9 March 2023 — eClear v Commission

70

2023/C 155/88

Case T-128/23: Action brought on 9 March 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v European Data Protection Board

71

2023/C 155/89

Case T-129/23: Action brought on 9 March 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v European Data Protection Board

72

2023/C 155/90

Case T-130/23: Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Nike Innovate v EUIPO — Puma (FOOTWARE)

73

2023/C 155/91

Case T-355/22: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2023 — Aitana v EUIPO

74

EN

 

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/1

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

(2023/C 155/01)

Last publication

OJ C 134, 17.4.2023

Past publications

OJ C 127, 11.4.2023

OJ C 121, 3.4.2023

OJ C 112, 27.3.2023

OJ C 104, 20.3.2023

OJ C 94, 13.3.2023

OJ C 83, 6.3.2023

These texts are available on:

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

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Les Mousquetaires, ITM Entreprises SAS v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-682/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Decision of the European Commission ordering an inspection - Remedies against the conduct of the inspection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 19 - Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Article 3 - Recording of interviews conducted by the Commission during its investigations - Starting point of the Commission’s investigation)

(2023/C 155/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Les Mousquetaires, ITM Entreprises SAS (represented by: M. Blutel, N. Jalabert-Doury and K. Mebarek, avocats)

Other parties: European Commission (represented by: P. Berghe, A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, A. Dawes and I. V. Rogalski, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-L. Meyer and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2020, Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission (T-255/17, EU:T:2020:460), in so far as it dismissed the remainder of the action brought by the appellants against Commission Decision C(2017) 1057 final of 9 February 2017 ordering Intermarché and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40466 — Tute 1) and Commission Decision C(2017) 1361 final of 21 February 2017 ordering Les Mousquetaires and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40467 — Tute 2);

2.

Sets aside point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2020, Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission (T-255/17, EU:T:2020:460), in so far as it ruled on costs;

3.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 1057 final of 9 February 2017 ordering Intermarché and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40466 — Tute 1) and Commission Decision C(2017) 1361 final of 21 February 2017 ordering Les Mousquetaires and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40467 — Tute 2);

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Les Mousquetaires SAS and by ITM Entreprises SAS, both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings;

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs, both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon, Achats Marchandises Casino SAS (AMC) v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-690/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Decision of the European Commission ordering an inspection - Remedies against the conduct of the inspection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 19 - Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Article 3 - Recording of interviews conducted by the Commission during its investigations - Starting point of the Commission’s investigation)

(2023/C 155/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Casino, Guichard-Perrachon, Achats Marchandises Casino SAS (AMC) (represented by: G. Aubron, Y. Boubacir, O. de Juvigny, I. Simic and A. Sunderland, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Berghe, A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, A. Dawes and I. V. Rogalski, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-L. Meyer and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2020, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission (T-249/17, EU:T:2020:458);

2.

Sets aside point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2020, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission (T-249/17, EU:T:2020:458), in so far as it ruled on costs;

3.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 1054 final of 9 February 2017 ordering Casino and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40466 — Tute 1);

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Casino, Guichard-Perrachon SA and by Achats Marchandises Casino SAS (AMC), both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings;

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs, both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Intermarché Casino Achats v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-693/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Decision of the European Commission ordering an inspection - Remedies against the conduct of the inspection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 19 - Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Article 3 - Recording of interviews conducted by the Commission during its investigations - Starting point of the Commission’s investigation)

(2023/C 155/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Intermarché Casino Achats (represented by: F. Abouzeid, S. Eder, J. Jourdan, C. Mussi and Y. Utzschneider, Avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Berghe, A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, A. Dawes and I. V. Rogalski, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-L. Meyer and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2020, Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission (T-254/17, not published, EU:T:2020:459);

2.

Sets aside point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2020, Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission (T-254/17, not published, EU:T:2020:459) in so far as it ruled on costs;

3.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 1056 final of 9 February 2017, ordering Intermarché Casino Achats and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1);

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Intermarché Casino Achats SARL, both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings;

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs, both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Fenix International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-695/20, (1) Fenix International)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Implementing power of the Council of the European Union - Article 291(2) TFEU - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 28 and 397 - Taxable person, acting in his or her own name but on behalf of another person - Provider of services by electronic means - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 - Article 9a - Presumption - Validity)

(2023/C 155/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fenix International Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 9a(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 implementing Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1042/2013 of 7 October 2013, in the light of Articles 28 and 397 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2017/2455 of 5 December 2017, and of Article 291(2) TFEU.

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Eurocostruzioni Srl v Regione Calabria

(Case C-31/21, (1) Eurocostruzioni)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural Funds - Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 - Eligibility of expenditure - Requirement of proof of payment - Receipted invoices - Accounting documents of equivalent probative value - Construction undertaken directly by the final beneficiary)

(2023/C 155/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurocostruzioni Srl

Defendant: Regione Calabria

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Point 2.1 of Rule No 1 of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004

must be interpreted as not allowing the final beneficiary of funding for the construction of a building, which carried out that construction using its own resources, to justify the expenditure incurred by producing documents other than those expressly mentioned in that provision.

2.

Point 2.1 of Rule No 1 of the annex to Regulation No 1685/2000, as amended by Regulation No 448/2004,

must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards the final beneficiary of funding for the construction of a building, which carried out that construction using its own resources, a measurement booklet and an accounting ledger may not be classified as ‘accounting documents of equivalent probative value’, within the meaning of that provision, except where, in the light of their specific content and the relevant national rules, those documents are capable of proving that the expenditure incurred by that final beneficiary was actually made, giving a true and accurate picture of that expenditure.

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators v Aquind Ltd

(Case C-46/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Energy - Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 - Article 17 - Request for exemption relating to an electricity interconnector - Refusal decision from the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) - Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 - Article 19 - Board of Appeal of ACER - Intensity of the review)

(2023/C 155/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents, and by B. Creve, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Aquind Ltd (represented by: J. Bille, C. Davis, S. Goldberg and E. White, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the main appeal;

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the cross-appeal;

3.

Orders the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal and to pay those incurred by Aquind Ltd;

4.

Orders the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) and Aquind Ltd to bear their own costs relating to the cross-appeal.

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — AS ‘PrivatBank’, A, B, Unimain Holdings Limited v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

(Case C-78/21, (1) PrivatBank and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 56 and 63 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - National measure imposing an obligation on a credit institution to terminate business relationships with non-nationals or no longer to enter into such relationships - Restriction - Article 65(1)(b) TFEU - Justification - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Proportionality)

(2023/C 155/08)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AS ‘PrivatBank’, A, B, Unimain Holdings Limited

Defendant: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Financial loans and credits and operations in current and deposit accounts with financial institutions and, in particular, credit institutions constitute movements of capital within the meaning of Article 63(1) TFEU.

2.

The first paragraph of Article 56 and Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an administrative measure by which the competent authority of a Member State, first, prohibits a credit institution from entering into business relationships with any natural or legal person who has no connection with the Member State in which that institution is established and whose monthly account turnover exceeds a certain level, and, secondly, requires that institution to terminate any such business relationships entered into after the adoption of that measure, amounts to a restriction on the freedom to provide services, within the meaning of the first of those provisions, and a restriction on the movement of capital, within the meaning of the second of those provisions.

3.

The first paragraph of Article 56 and Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude an administrative measure by which the competent authority of a Member State, first, prohibits a credit institution from entering into business relationships with any natural person who has no links with the Member State in which that institution is established and whose monthly account turnover exceeds EUR 15 000, or with any legal person whose economic activity has no connection with that Member State and whose monthly account turnover exceeds EUR 50 000, and, secondly, requires that institution to terminate any such business relationships entered into after the adoption of that measure, provided that that administrative measure, first, is justified by the objective of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing or as a requisite measure to prevent infringements of national law and regulations in the field of the prudential supervision of financial institutions, or as a measure which is justified on grounds of public policy, referred to in Article 65(1)(b) TFEU; secondly, is appropriate for ensuring attainment of those objectives; thirdly, does not go beyond what is necessary for attaining them; and, fourthly, does not lead to an excessive impairment of the rights and interests protected under Articles 56 and 63 TFEU, which are enjoyed by the credit institution concerned and its customers.

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — PlasticsEurope v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, ClientEarth

(Case C-119/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Annex XIV - List of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV - Updating of the entry of the substance bisphenol A as ‘a substance of very high concern’)

(2023/C 155/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PlasticsEurope (represented by: R. Cana and E. Mullier, avocates)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere and A. Hautamäki, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, advocaat), Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by J. Möller and D. Klebs, acting as Agents, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. Bain and T. Stéhelin, acting as Agents), ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders PlasticsEurope AISBL to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth;

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Norra Stockholm Bygg AB v Per Nycander AB

(Case C-268/21, (1) Norra Stockholm Bygg)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 6(3) and (4) - Lawfulness of processing - Production of a document containing personal data in civil court proceedings - Article 23(1)(f) and (j) - Protection of judicial independence and judicial proceedings - Enforcement of civil law claims - Requirements to be complied with - Having regard to the interests of the data subjects - Balancing of the opposing interests involved - Article 5 - Minimisation of personal data - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7 - Right to respect for private life - Article 8 - Right to protection of personal data - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Principle of proportionality)

(2023/C 155/10)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Norra Stockholm Bygg AB

Defendant: Per Nycander AB

Other party: Entral AB

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 6(3) and (4) of 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),

must be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies, in the context of civil court proceedings, to the production as evidence of a staff register containing personal data of third parties collected principally for the purposes of tax inspection.

2.

Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that when assessing whether the production of a document containing personal data must be ordered, the national court is required to have regard to the interests of the data subjects concerned and to balance them according to the circumstances of each case, the type of proceeding at issue and duly taking into account the requirements arising from the principle of proportionality as well as, in particular, those resulting from the principle of data minimisation referred to in Article 5(1)(c) of that regulation.

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A

(Case C-270/21, (1) A (Nursery school teacher))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Recognition of professional qualifications in a Member State - Directive 2005/36/EC - Right to exercise the profession of nursery school teacher - Regulated profession - Right of access to the profession on the basis of a diploma issued in the home Member State - Professional qualification obtained in a third country)

(2023/C 155/11)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Other party: Opetushallitus

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013,

must be interpreted as meaning that a profession in respect of which national legislation imposes qualification requirements for access to and pursuit of the profession, but leaves employers a discretion in assessing whether those requirements are met, is not to be regarded as a ‘regulated profession’ within the meaning of that provision.

2.

Article 3(3) of Directive 2005/36, as amended by Directive 2013/55,

must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is not applicable where the evidence of formal qualifications presented to the host Member State was obtained on the territory of another Member State at a time when that other Member State existed not as an independent State but as a Soviet Socialist Republic, and where that evidence of formal qualifications was regarded by that Member State as evidence of formal qualifications issued by that Member State after it had regained its independence. Such evidence of formal qualifications must be regarded as having been obtained in a Member State and not in a third country.

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas -Lithuania) — R.J.R. v Registrų centras VĮ

(Case C-354/21, (1) Registrų centras)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European Certificate of Succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 1(2)(l) - Scope - Article 68 - Contents of the European Certificate of Succession - Article 69(5) - Effects of the European Certificate of Succession - Succession immovable property located in a Member State other than that of the succession - Registration of that immovable property in the land register of that Member State - Legal requirements for such registration under the law of that Member State - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 - Mandatory nature of Form V in Annex 5 to that implementing regulation)

(2023/C 155/12)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R.J.R.

Defendant: Registrų centras VĮ

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2)(l), 68(l) and 69(5) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession

must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State which provides that an application for registration of immovable property in the land register of that Member State may be rejected where the only document submitted in support of that application is a European Certificate of Succession which does not identify that immovable property.

(1)  OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Sdruzhenie ‘Za Zemyata — dostap do pravosadie’, ‘Тhe Green Тank — grazhdansko sdruzhenie s nestopanska tsel’ — Hellenic Republic, NS v Izpalnitelen director na Izpalnitelna agentsia po okolna sreda, ‘TETS Maritsa iztok 2’ EAD

(Case C-375/21, (1) Sdruzhenie ‘Za Zemyata — dostap do pravosadie’ and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Ambient air quality - Directive 2008/50/EC - Articles 13 and 23 - Limit values for the protection of human health - Exceedance - Air quality plan - Directive 2010/75/EU - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Update of a permit to operate a power plant - Emission limit values - Article 15(4) - Application for a derogation setting less strict emission limit values - Significant pollution - Article 18 - Compliance with environmental quality standards - Obligations of the competent authority)

(2023/C 155/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sdruzhenie ‘Za Zemyata — dostap do pravosadie’, ‘Тhe Green Тank — grazhdansko sdruzhenie s nestopanska tsel’ — Hellenic Republic, NS

Defendants: Izpalnitelen director na Izpalnitelna agentsia po okolna sreda, ‘TETS Maritsa iztok 2’ EAD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(4) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), read in conjunction with Article 18 thereof and with Articles 13 and 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe,

must be interpreted as meaning that when considering a request for a derogation under Article 15(4) of the directive, the competent authority must, taking into account all the relevant scientific data on pollution including the cumulative effect with other sources of the pollutant concerned and the measures under the relevant air quality plan established for a given zone or agglomeration in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2008/50, refrain from granting such a derogation when that derogation is capable of contributing to exceedance of the air quality standards defined pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2008/50 or being contrary to the measures included in the plan intended to ensure compliance with those standards and to keep the period of exceedance thereof as short as possible.

(1)  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Bursa Română de Mărfuri SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Reglementare în domeniul Energiei (ANRE)

(Case C-394/21, (1) Bursa Română de Mărfuri)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market for electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Regulation (EU) 2019/943 - Article 1(b) and (c) and Article 3 - Principles regarding the operation of electricity markets - Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 - Article 5(1) - Nominated electricity market operator - National legal monopoly for day-ahead and intraday trading services - National legislation providing for a monopoly for short-, medium- and long-term wholesale trading of electricity)

(2023/C 155/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bursa Română de Mărfuri SA

Defendant: Autoritatea Naţională de Reglementare în domeniul Energiei (ANRE)

Intervener: Federaţia Europeană a Comercianţilor de Energie

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity, in particular Article 1(b) and (c), Article 2(40) and Article 3 of that regulation, read in conjunction with Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC,

must be interpreted as:

—

not precluding legislation of a Member State under which a national legal monopoly for intermediation services in respect of offers to sell and bids to buy electricity concerning the day-ahead and intraday wholesale markets is maintained, provided that that monopoly already existed in that Member State at the time of the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management, in accordance with Article 5 of that regulation;

—

not precluding legislation of a Member State under which a national legal monopoly for intermediation services in respect of offers to sell and bids to buy electricity concerning the forward wholesale market is maintained, since the conformity of such legislation with EU law must be assessed in the light of the relevant provisions of primary EU law.

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against FU, DRV Intertrans BV (C-410/21), and Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN (C-661/21)

(Joined Cases C-410/21 and C-661/21, (1) DRV Intertrans and Others)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 5 - A1 certificate - Provisional withdrawal - Binding effect - Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 13(1)(b)(i) - Persons normally pursuing an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States - Applicability of the legislation of the Member State in which the registered office is situated - Concept of ‘registered office’ - Undertaking which has obtained a Community licence for transport under Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 - Effect - Licence fraudulently obtained or relied on)

(2023/C 155/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

FU, DRV Intertrans BV (C-410/21), and Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN (C-661/21)

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012,

must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State is binding upon the institutions and courts of the Member State in which the work is carried out, including where, following a request for reconsideration and withdrawal sent by the competent institution of that latter Member State to the issuing institution, that institution has declared that it has provisionally suspended the binding effects of that certificate until such time as it decides definitively on that request. However, in such circumstances, a court of the Member State in which the work is carried out, seised in the context of criminal proceedings brought against persons suspected of having fraudulently obtained or used the same A1 certificate, may find that there has been fraud and consequently disregard that certificate, for the purposes of those criminal proceedings, provided that, first, a reasonable period has elapsed without the issuing institution having reconsidered the grounds for issuing that certificate and having adopted a decision on the specific evidence submitted by the competent institution in the host Member State, which gave rise to the view that that certificate had been obtained or invoked fraudulently, as the case may be, by cancelling or withdrawing the certificate in question and, second, that the guarantees inherent in the right to a fair trial which must be afforded to those persons have been respected.

2.

Article 13(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012, read in the light of Article 3(1)(a) and Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC, and of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules for access to the international road haulage market,

must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a company holds a Community licence for road transport issued by the competent authorities of a Member State does not constitute irrefutable proof that that company’s registered office is in that Member State for the purpose of determining, in accordance with Article 13(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012, which national legislation on social security is applicable.

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-432/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 6(1) to (3), Article 12(1)(a) to (d), Article 13(1)(a) and Article 16(1) - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Article 4(1), Article 5(a), (b) and (d) and Article 9(1) - Forest management based on good practice - Forest management plans - Aarhus Convention - Access to justice - Article 6(1)(b) and Article 9(2) - Examination of the lawfulness, as regards the substance and procedure, of forest management plans - Right of environmental organisations to bring an action)

(2023/C 155/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff, G. Gattinara, C. Hermes and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Declares that, by adopting Article 14b(3) of the ustawa o lasach (Law on forests), of 28 September 1991, as amended by the ustawa o zmianie ustawy o ochronie przyrody oraz ustawy o lasach (Law amending the Law on nature protection and the Law on forests), of 16 December 2016, which provides that forest management implemented in accordance with the requirements of good forest management practice does not infringe the provisions relating to the conservation of specific natural resources, formations and components, in particular the provisions of Article 51 and 52 of the ustawa o ochronie przyrody (Law on nature protection), of 16 April 2004, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and (2), Article 12(1), Article 13(1)(a) and Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, and Article 4(1), Article 5(a), (b) and (d) and Article 9(1) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Directive 2013/17;

2.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the legislative provisions necessary to ensure that environmental organisations are able to apply to a court for effective review of the substantive and procedural legality of forest management plans, within the meaning of the provisions of the Law on forests, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) and Article 9(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-marking and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005;

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Törvényszék — Hungary) — IH v MÁV-START Vasúti Személyszállító Zrt.

(Case C-477/21, (1) MÁV-START)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/88/EC - Articles 3 and 5 - Daily rest and weekly rest - National legislation providing for a minimum weekly rest period of 42 hours - Obligation to grant daily rest - Rules for granting)

(2023/C 155/17)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Miskolci Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IH

Defendant: MÁV-START Vasúti Személyszállító Zrt.

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 5 of 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, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that the daily rest period provided for in Article 3 of that directive does not form part of the weekly rest period referred to in Article 5 of that directive, but is additional to it.

2.

Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2003/88, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that where national legislation provides for a weekly rest period exceeding 35 consecutive hours, the worker must be granted, in addition to that period, the daily rest as guaranteed by Article 3 of that directive.

3.

Article 3 of Directive 2003/88, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that where a worker is granted a weekly rest period, he or she is also entitled to a daily rest period preceding that weekly rest period.

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/16

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — RWE Power Aktiengesellschaft v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-571/21, (1) RWE Power)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 14(1)(a) - Second and third sentences of Article 21(3) - Electricity used to produce electricity and to maintain the ability to produce electricity - Exemption - Scope - Opencast mining operations - Electricity used in order to operate fuel bunkers and means of transport)

(2023/C 155/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RWE Power Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

1.

The first sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, read in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 21(3) of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemption for ‘electricity used to produce electricity’ laid down in that provision does not cover the electricity used in connection with the extraction of an energy product, such as lignite, from an opencast mine, where that electricity is used not in the technological process of electricity production, but for the manufacture of an energy product. Conversely, that exemption may cover the subsequent conversion and processing of that energy product in power stations in order to produce electricity, provided that those operations are essential and contribute directly to the technological process of that production.

2.

The first sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96

must be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemption for ‘electricity used to maintain the ability to produce electricity’ laid down in that provision may cover electricity intended for the operation of storage facilities for an energy product, such as lignite, and of means of transport allowing that product to be transported, where those operations take place inside power stations, provided that they are essential and contribute directly to maintaining capacity for the technological process of electricity production, inasmuch as such operations are required to guarantee maintenance of capacity for uninterrupted electricity production.

(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Braga — Portugal) — Vapo Atlantic SA v Entidade Nacional para o Setor Energético E.P.E. (ENSE)

(Case C-604/21, (1) Vapo Atlantic)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Information procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Directive 98/34/EC - Article 1(4) - Concept of ‘other requirements’ - Article 1(11) - Concept of ‘technical regulation’ - Article 8(1) - Obligation on the Member States to notify the European Commission of any draft technical regulation - National provision providing for the incorporation of a certain percentage of biofuels into motor fuels - Third indent of Article 10(1) - Concept of ‘safeguard clause provided for in a binding EU act’ - Second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/30/EC not included)

(2023/C 155/19)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Braga

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vapo Atlantic SA

Defendant: Entidade Nacional para o Setor Energético E.P.E. (ENSE)

intervening parties: Fundo Ambiental, Fundo de Eficiência Energética (FEE)

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 1(4) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006,

must be interpreted as meaning that a national law which sets a target for the incorporation of 10 % of biofuels into motor fuels released for consumption by an economic operator in a given year is covered by the concept of ‘other requirements’ within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Directive 98/34, as amended, and thus constitutes a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34, as amended, which can be enforced against individuals only if its draft has been notified in accordance with Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended.

2.

Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 2006/96,

must be interpreted as meaning that a national law which is intended to transpose Article 7a(2) of Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC, as amended by Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, in a manner consistent with the objective set out in Article 3(4) of 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, is not capable of constituting a mere transposition of the full text of a European standard for the purposes of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended, and, therefore, of not being subject to the obligation to notify laid down by that provision.

3.

The second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/30

must be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not constitute a safeguard clause provided for in a binding EU act, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 10(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 2006/96.

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/18

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Nec Plus Ultra Cosmetics AG v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-664/21, (1) Nec Plus Ultra Cosmetics AG)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 138(1) - Exemptions for intra-community transactions - Supply of goods - Principles of tax neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality - Compliance with substantive requirements - Time limit for the submission of evidence)

(2023/C 155/20)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nec Plus Ultra Cosmetics AG

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 131 and Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principles of tax neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality,

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which prohibits the production and gathering of new evidence which establishes that the substantive conditions laid down in Article 138(1) of that directive are satisfied, during the administrative procedure which resulted in the adoption of the tax assessment notice, in particular after the tax inspection stage but before the adoption of that decision, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness have been complied with.

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/18

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland — Sweden) — AI v Åklagarmyndigheten

(Case C-666/21, (1) Åklagarmyndigheten)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Scope - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 3(h) - Notion of ‘carriage by road of goods’ - Notion of ‘maximum permissible mass’ - Vehicle fitted out as a temporary private living space and for the non-commercial loading of goods - Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 - Tachographs - Article 23(1) - Requirement for regular inspections by approved workshops)

(2023/C 155/21)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AI

Defendant: Åklagarmyndigheten

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014, read in conjunction with Article 3(h) of Regulation No 561/2006, as amended,

must be interpreted to the effect that the notion of ‘carriage by road of goods’, within the meaning of the first of those provisions, covers carriage by road by a vehicle whose maximum permissible mass, within the meaning of Article 4(m) of Regulation No 561/2006, as amended, exceeds 7,5 tonnes, including where it is fitted out not only as a temporary private living area but also for the non-commercial loading of goods, without that vehicle’s cargo capacity or the category in which it appears in the national road traffic register having any effect in that regard.

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/19

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Papierfabriek Doetinchem BV v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co.

(Case C-684/21, (1) Papierfabriek Doetinchem)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 8(1) - Features of appearance of a product dictated solely by its technical function - Criteria for assessment - Existence of alternative designs - Proprietor also holding a multitude of alternative protected designs - Multicolour appearance of a product not reflected in the registration of the design concerned)

(2023/C 155/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Papierfabriek Doetinchem BV

Defendant: Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co.

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs

must be interpreted as meaning that the assessment as to whether the features of appearance of a product are dictated solely by its technical function, within the meaning of that provision, must be made having regard to all of the objective circumstances relevant to each case, inter alia those dictating the choice of features of appearance, the existence of alternative designs which fulfil the same technical function, and the fact that the proprietor of the design in question also holds design rights for numerous alternative designs, although that latter fact is not decisive for the application of that provision.

2.

Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002

must be interpreted as meaning that, in the assessment as to whether the appearance of a product is dictated solely by its technical function, the fact that the design of that product allows for a multicolour appearance cannot be taken into account in the case where that multicolour appearance is not apparent from the registration of the design concerned.

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/20

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-695/21, (1) Recreatieprojecten Zeeland and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Restrictions on the freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Legislation of a Member State laying down a general ban on advertising by gaming establishments - Automatic derogation from that ban for establishments holding an operating licence issued by the authorities of that Member State - No possibility of derogation for establishments located in another Member State)

(2023/C 155/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which grants the operators of a limited and controlled number of gaming establishments located on the territory of that Member State an automatic derogation from the advertising ban generally applicable to such establishments, without providing for the possibility for operators of gaming establishments located in another Member State to obtain a derogation for the same purposes.

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/21

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Francoise Grossetête v European Parliament

(Case C-714/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme - Individual decision fixing additional voluntary pension rights - Plea of illegality - Competence of the Bureau of the Parliament - Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Legal certainty)

(2023/C 155/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Francoise Grossetête (represented by: E. Arnaldos Orts, abogado, F. Doumont, avocat, J. Martínez Gimeno and D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker, N. Görlitz and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Ms Françoise Grossetête to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/21

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Gerardo Galeote (C-715/21 P), Graham Watson (C-716/21 P) v European Parliament

(Joined Cases C-715/21 P and C-716/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme - Individual decision fixing additional voluntary pension rights - Plea of illegality - Competence of the Bureau of the Parliament - Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Legal certainty)

(2023/C 155/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Gerardo Galeote (C-715/21 P), Graham Watson (C-716/21 P) (represented by: E. Arnaldos Orts, abogado, F. Doumont, avocat, J. Martínez Gimeno and D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker, N. Görlitz and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

2.

Orders Mr Gerardo Galeote and Mr Graham Watson to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/22

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Kwizda Pharma GmbH v Landeshauptmann von Wien

(Case C-760/21, (1) Kwizda Pharma)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Food - Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 - Article 2(2)(g) - Concept of ‘food for special medical purposes’ - Other particular nutritional requirements - Dietary management - Modification of the diet - Nutrients - Use under medical supervision - Ingredients not absorbed or metabolised in the alimentary canal - Distinction in relation to medicinal products - Distinction in relation to food supplements)

(2023/C 155/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kwizda Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 1(2) 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 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control and repealing Council Directive 92/52/EEC, Commission Directives 96/8/EC, 1999/21/EC, 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 41/2009 and (EC) No 953/2009,

must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of distinguishing between the concepts of ‘medicinal product’ and ‘food for special medical purposes’, which are defined in those provisions respectively, it must be assessed in the light of the nature and characteristics of the product concerned, whether it is food intended to meet particular nutritional requirements or a product intended to prevent or cure human disease, to restore, correct or modify physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to make a medical diagnosis, or where appropriate, presented as such.

2.

Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 609/2013

must be interpreted as meaning that first, the concept of ‘dietary management’ covers requirements caused by a disease, disorder or health condition, the satisfaction of which is indispensable to the patient from a nutritional point of view, secondly, the classification as a ‘food for special medical purposes’ cannot be made subject to the condition that the satisfaction of ‘nutritional needs’ caused by a disease, disorder or health condition secondly, the qualification of ‘food for special medical purposes’ cannot be made conditional on the satisfaction of ‘dietary management’ needs caused by a disease, disorder or health condition, and therefore the effect of the product, necessarily taking place during or following digestion and, thirdly, the concept of ‘modification of the normal diet alone’ includes both situations in which a modification of the diet is impossible or dangerous for the patient and situations in which the patient can only with great difficulty satisfy his or her nutritional requirements with ordinary food.

3.

Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 609/2013

must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the application of that regulation, which does not define the concept of ‘nutrient’, reference must be made to the definition of that concept in Article 2(2)(s) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004.

4.

Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 609/2013

must be interpreted as meaning that first, a product must be used under medical supervision if the recommendation and subsequent assessment of a health professional are necessary in the light of the dietary management needs arising from a particular disease, disorder or health condition and the effects of the product on the patient’s dietary management and on the patient, and, secondly, that the requirement that a food for special medical purposes is ‘to be used under medical supervision’ is not a condition for qualification of a product as such.

5.

Article 2 of Directive 2002/46 and Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 609/2013

must be interpreted as meaning that the concepts of ‘food supplement’ and ‘food for special medical purposes’, which are defined in those provisions respectively, are mutually exclusive and that it is necessary to determine on a case-by-case basis and according to the characteristics and conditions of use whether a product falls within one or other of those concepts.

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/23

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Graz — Austria) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and execution of a European Investigation Order concerning MS

(Case C-16/22, (1) Staatsanwaltschaft Graz (Düsseldorf Tax Office for Criminal Tax Matters))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/41/EU - European Investigation Order - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘judicial authority’ - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘issuing authority’ - Order issued by a tax authority without being validated by a judge or public prosecutor - Tax authority assuming the rights and the obligations of the public prosecutor’s office in the context of a criminal tax investigation)

(2023/C 155/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Graz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MS

other parties: Staatsanwaltschaft Graz, Finanzamt für Steuerstrafsachen und Steuerfahndung Düsseldorf

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 1(1) and Article 2(c)(i) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters

must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

a tax authority of a Member State which, while being part of the executive of that Member State, conducts, in accordance with national law, criminal tax investigations autonomously, instead of the public prosecutor’s office and assuming the rights and the obligations vested in the latter, cannot be classified as a ‘judicial authority’ and an ‘issuing authority’, within the meaning, respectively, of each of those provisions;

—

such an authority is, on the other hand, capable of falling within the concept of an ‘issuing authority’ within the meaning of Article 2(c)(ii) of that directive, provided that the conditions set out in that provision are met.

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/24

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rada Úradu pre verejné obstarávanie — Slovakia) — HOREZZA a.s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

(Case C-520/22, (1) Horezza)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal’ - Appellate body of a national supervisory authority for public procurement procedures - Independence - Status of a third party in relation to the authority which adopted the contested decision - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2023/C 155/28)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Rada Úradu pre verejné obstarávanie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HOREZZA a.s.

Defendant: Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Rada Úradu pre verejné obstarávanie (Council of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, Slovakia), by decision of 3 August 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1)  Date lodged: 4.8.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/24

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rada Úradu pre verejné obstarávanie — Slovakia) — KONŠTRUKTA — Defence a.s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

(Case C-521/22, (1) Konštrukta — Defence)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal’ - Appellate body of a national supervisory authority for public procurement procedures - Independence - Status of a third party in relation to the authority which adopted the contested decision - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2023/C 155/29)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Rada Úradu pre verejné obstarávanie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KONŠTRUKTA — Defence a.s.

Defendant: Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Rada Úradu pre verejné obstarávanie (Council of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, Slovakia), by decision of 3 August 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1)  Date lodged: 4.8.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova (Romania) lodged on 18 October 2022 — SC Bitulpetrolium Serv SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Prahova — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

(Case C-657/22)

(2023/C 155/30)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Prahova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Bitulpetrolium Serv SRL

Defendant: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Prahova — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

Questions referred

1.

Are national provisions and practices such as those at issue in the present case, according to which the reintroduction into a tax warehouse of a heating fuel (heating oil) in the absence of a customs inspection [constitutes] an alleged infringement of the warehousing procedure justifying the application of excise duty at the rate fixed for gas oil — a fuel whose excise duty is more than 21 times higher than the excise duty on heating oil — contrary to the principle of proportionality and to Article 2(3), Article 5 and Article 21(1) of Directive 2003/96/EC[?] (1)

2.

Are national provisions and practices such as those at issue in the present case, according to which VAT is charged on additional amounts determined by the tax authority by way of excise duty on gas oil as a penalty for non-compliance with the customs supervision arrangements of the taxable person, as a result of the taxable person reintroducing into the warehouse energy products of the heating oil type, on which excise duty had already been paid, and which have been refused by customers and remain intact and [in storage] until a [new] buyer is identified, contrary to the principle of proportionality, the principle of neutrality of VAT and Articles 2, 250 and 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC? (2)

(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

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

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 14 December 2022 — XX v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C-782/22)

(2023/C 155/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XX

Respondent: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Question referred

Does Article 63(1) TFEU preclude legislation such as that at issue, according to which dividends paid by listed and unlisted companies established in the Netherlands to a company established in another Member State that has invested, inter alia, in shares in those listed and unlisted companies to cover future payment obligations are subject to withholding tax at the rate of 15 % on the gross amount of those dividend payments, whereas the tax burden on dividend payments to a company established in the Netherlands in otherwise similar circumstances would be nil, because the calculation of the basis of assessment for the tax on profits to which that company would be subject takes into account the costs that are incurred as a result of an increase in the future payment obligations of the company, which increase corresponds almost entirely to a (positive) change in the value of the investments, even though the receipt of dividends does not as such lead to a change in the value of those obligations?

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 December 2022 — G.A. v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

(Case C-791/22, Hauptzollamt Braunschweig)

(2023/C 155/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: G.A.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

Question referred

Is Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and, in particular, Articles 30 and 60 thereof, infringed where Article 215(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) is declared under a national provision to be applicable mutatis mutandis to import VAT?

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

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 12 January 2023 — Eventmedia Soluciones, S.L. v Air Europa Líneas Aéreas, S.A.U.

(Case C-11/23, Eventmedia Soluciones)

(2023/C 155/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Palma de Mallorca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eventmedia Soluciones, S.L.

Defendant: Air Europa Líneas Aéreas, S.A.U.

Questions referred

1.

Can the inclusion in the contract of carriage by air of a clause such as the clause in question be regarded as an inadmissible exception within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, (1) on the ground that it limits the carrier’s obligations by limiting the possibility for passengers to receive compensation for the cancellation of a flight by transferring the claim?

2.

Can Article 7(1) in conjunction with Articles 5(1)(c) and 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the payment of compensation for the cancellation of a flight to be paid by the operating carrier is an obligation imposed by the Regulation irrespective of the existence of a contract of carriage with the passenger and of the culpable breach of the air carrier’s contractual obligations?

In the alternative, in the event that that clause is considered to not constitute an inadmissible exception within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 or it is held that the right to compensation is of a contractual nature, the following question is referred for a preliminary ruling:

3.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (2) be interpreted as meaning that a national court hearing an action regarding the right to compensation for the cancellation of a flight provided for in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is required to review of its own motion whether a clause in the contract of carriage that does not allow the passenger to transfer their rights is unfair, where the claim is brought by the transferee, who, unlike the transferor, is not a consumer or user?

4.

If it is appropriate to carry out a review of the court’s own motion, may the obligation to inform the consumer and establish whether they claim that the clause is unfair or consent to it be disregarded in the light of the conclusive act of having transferred their claim in breach of any unfair term that does not permit the claim to be transferred?

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

(2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 18 January 2023 — F S.A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-18/23, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej)

(2023/C 155/34)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F S.A.

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), (1) and in particular Article 29(1) thereof, in conjunction with Articles 18, 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted a precluding the laying down in national legislation of formal requirements, such as in the main proceedings, for taking advantage of exemptions from corporation tax by undertakings for collective investment whose registered office is in a Member State of the European Union other than the Republic of Poland, or in another State in the European Economic Area, that is to say from the requirement that they be managed by persons who have, for the pursuit of their activity, the authorisation of the competent financial market supervisory authorities of the State in which the registered office of those undertakings is situated?

(1)  OJ 2009 L 302, p. 32.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/28

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2023 — ND v DR

(Case C-21/23, Lindenapotheke)

(2023/C 155/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: ND

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

Questions referred

1.

Do the rules in Chapter VIII of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) preclude national rules which — alongside the powers of intervention of the supervisory authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the regulation and the options for legal redress for data subjects — empower competitors to bring proceedings for infringements of the General Data Protection Regulation against the infringer before the civil courts on the basis of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices?

2.

Do the data that the customers of a pharmacist who acts as a seller on an online sales platform enter when ordering pharmacy-only but not prescription-only medicines on the sales platform (customer’s name, delivery address and information required for individualising the pharmacy-only medicine ordered) constitute data concerning health within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and of Article 8(1) of the Data Protection Directive? (2)

(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).

(2)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/29

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 23 January 2023 — FV v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

(Case C-27/23, Hocinx) (1)

(2023/C 155/36)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FV

Respondent: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

Questions referred

Do the principle of equal treatment guaranteed by Article 45 TFEU and by Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (2) and the provisions of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (3) and Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (4) preclude provisions enacted by a Member State under which frontier workers may not receive a family allowance associated with their employment in that Member State for children placed in care with them under a court order, whereas any child placed in care under a court order and living in that Member State is entitled to receive that allowance which is paid to the natural or legal person who has custody of the child and with whom the child is officially resident and actually lives on a continuous basis? Does the answer to that question depend on whether the frontier worker provides for the upkeep of that child?

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/29

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 24 January 2023 — AA AG v VM, AG GmbH

(Case C-33/23, Schwarzder (1))

(2023/C 155/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AA AG

Respondents: VM, AG GmbH

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) in conjunction with the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 21 June 1999, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 26 November 2010, (3) to be interpreted as meaning that a flight connection consisting of two flights, departing from the territory of the Swiss Confederation with a stopover in the territory of a Member State and a final destination in the territory of a third country (the operating air carrier for which is, moreover, a Community carrier), falls within the scope of Regulation No261/2004?

2.

Is Article 3(1)(b) and Regulation No 261/2004 in conjunction with the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 21 June 1999, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 26 November 2010, to be interpreted as meaning that a flight connection consisting of two flights, departing from the territory of a third country with a stopover in the territory of a Member State and a final destination in the territory of the Swiss Confederation, the operating air carrier for which is a Community carrier, falls within the scope of Regulation No 261/2004?

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

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

(3)  Decision No 2/2010 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 26 November 2010, replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2010 L 347, p. 54).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/30

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (Poland) lodged on 24 January 2023 — RF v Getin Noble Bank S.A.

(Case C-34/23, Getin Noble Bank)

(2023/C 155/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RF

Defendant: Getin Noble Bank S.A.

Question referred

Does the prohibition laid down in Article 70(1) Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, relate only to the possibility of securing a pecuniary claim by way of enforcement or also to the institution of any proceedings to secure claims in relation to an entity under special resolution?

(1)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/30

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2023 — Agenzia delle Entrate v PR

(Case C-37/23, Giocevi) (1)

(2023/C 155/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent: PR

Question referred

Do the principles set out in the order [of 15 July 2015,] Revenue Agency v Nuova Invincibile srl, C-82/14, EU:C:2015:510, and in the judgment of 17 July 2008, Commission v Italy, C-132/06, EU:C:2008:412, preclude a legislative provision, such as that resulting from Article 33(28) of Legge (Law) No. 183 of 2011, which allows taxpayers to obtain a refund, at the rate of 60 %, of the VAT paid in the period between April 2009 and December 2010, in relation to the earthquake which affected the Abruzzo territory on 6 April 2009?

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/31

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Ondernemingsrechtbank Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 31 January 2023 — A, B, C, D v MS Amlin Insurance SE

(Case C-45/23, MS Amlin Insurance)

(2023/C 155/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige Ondernemingsrechtbank Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: A, B, C, D

Respondent: MS Amlin Insurance SE

Question referred

Should Article 17(1) of Directive 2015/2302 (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that the security which it requires also applies to the refund of all sums already paid by travellers or on their behalf where the traveller terminates the package travel contract by reason of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 12(2) of that Directive and the organiser is declared insolvent after the termination of the package travel contract on that basis, but before those sums have actually been refunded to the traveller, as a result of which that traveller suffers a financial loss and consequently bears an economic risk in the event of the organiser’s liquidation?

(1)  OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/31

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 6 February 2023 — Y.N. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-58/23, Abboudnam (1))

(2023/C 155/41)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Y.N.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Question referred

Must Article 46(4) of Directive 2013/32/EU, (2) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, (3) be interpreted as precluding a national procedural rule, such as the second sentence of Article 70(1) of the ZMZ-1, which provides, for the lodging of an appeal against a decision by which the competent authority rejects an application as manifestly unfounded under an accelerated procedure, a time limit of three days from the notification of such a decision, including public holidays, which may expire at the end of the first working day thereafter?

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

(3)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/32

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 — Criminal proceedings against S.Z.

(Case C-67/23, W. GmbH)

(2023/C 155/42)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Accused: S.Z.

Confiscation party: W. GmbH.

Other party to the proceedings: Der Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Questions referred

1.

Is the term ‘originate in Burma/Myanmar’ under Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that none of the following processing operations performed in a third country (in the present case: Taiwan) on teak logs grown in Myanmar brought about a change of origin, to the effect that teak wood processed accordingly remained ‘goods’ that ‘originate in Burma/Myanmar’:

—

Debranching and debarking of teak logs;

—

Sawing teak logs into teak squares (debranched and debarked logs sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids);

—

Sawing teak logs into planks or boards (sawn wood)?

2.

Is the term ‘exported from Burma/Myanmar’ under Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 194/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that only goods imported into the European Union directly from Myanmar are covered, to the effect that goods initially exported to a third country (in the present case: Taiwan), and then transported onwards from there to the European Union, were not subject to the regulation, irrespective of whether they had undergone working or processing conferring origin in that third country?

3.

Is Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that a certificate of origin issued by a third country (in the present case: Taiwan) — which states that teak logs originating from Myanmar that have been sawn up or sawn to size have, as a result of that processing in the third country, acquired a status of origin in that State — is not binding for the purposes of assessing whether there has been an infringement of the import prohibition laid down in Article 2(2) of Regulation No 194/2008?

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/33

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 February 2023 — FJ v Agrárminiszter

(Case C-79/23, Kaszamás (1))

(2023/C 155/43)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FJ

Defendant: Agrárminiszter

Questions referred

1.

Is the concept of a finding as defined in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, on the financing of the common agricultural policy, (2) applicable when it comes to interpreting and applying Article 58, third paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009? (3)

2.

If the answer to the preceding question referred is yes, must the concept of a finding as defined in Article 35 of Regulation No 1290/2005 be interpreted as meaning that the calendar year of the primary administrative or judicial finding is to be regarded as the calendar year in which the authority handling the administrative procedure initiated on the basis of the claim:

—

carries out the first evidence-gathering action in which it establishes the existence of an irregularity, which, in the present case, is the year in which the report containing the conclusions of the on-the-spot check was written, or

—

takes the first decision with regard to the substance of the matter on the basis of that evidence-gathering action, or

—

in the context of the procedure, takes the final and definitive decision determining the exclusion?

3.

Does the fact that the written assessment that constitutes the finding may subsequently be withdrawn or adjusted as a result of the interested party’s right of appeal under the regulations and not as a consequence of changes in the administrative or judicial procedure have a bearing on the answer to the preceding question referred?

4.

If the calendar year of the finding is that of the first evidence-gathering action and, as is the case in this case, that action consisted of an on-the-spot check carried out on different occasions, must the concept of first evidence-gathering action in relation to Article 35 of Regulation No 1290/2005 be interpreted such that it equates to the first on-the-spot check by the authority or the final on-the-spot check, in which the observations and evidence provided by the interested party were also taken into account?

5.

If the answer to the first question referred is no, is there, on that account, any change in the previously defined content of the finding which must be taken into account for the purposes of Article 58, third paragraph, of Regulation No 1122/2009?

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/34

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 February 2023 — Criminal proceedings against V. S.

(Case C-80/23, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti)

(2023/C 155/44)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Accused

V. S.

Questions referred

1.

Is the requirement of assessing ‘strict necessity’ under Article 10 of Directive 2016/680, (1) as interpreted by the Court of Justice in paragraph 133 of [the judgment of 26 January 2023, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, C-205/21 (2)], satisfied if it is carried out solely on the basis of the decision accusing the person and on the basis of her written refusal to have her biometric and genetic data collected, or is it necessary for the court to have before it all the material in the file which, under national law, is made available to it in the event of an application for authorisation to carry out investigative measures which infringe the legal sphere of natural persons, where that application is made in a criminal case?

2.

If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the affirmative — after having been provided with the case file, may the court in the context of the assessment of ‘strict necessity’ pursuant to Article 10 in conjunction with Article 6(a) of Directive 2016/680 also consider whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused has committed the criminal offence referred to in the accusation?

(1)  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 (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89).

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:2023:49.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/34

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — E.N.I., Y.K.I. v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

(Case C-86/23, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung)

(2023/C 155/45)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: E.N.I., Y.K.I.

Respondent: HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Question referred

Must Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that a rule of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a fundamental principle of the law of the Member State, such as the principle of fairness, in the determination of compensation for non-material damage in cases where the death of a close person has occurred as a result of a tort or delict, may be regarded as an overriding mandatory provision within the meaning of that article?

(1)  OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/35

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 15 February 2023 — Parfümerie Akzente GmbH v KTF Organisation AB

(Case C-88/23, Parfümerie Akzente)

(2023/C 155/46)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Parfümerie Akzente GmbH

Respondent: KTF Organisation AB

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/31/EC, (1) having regard to EU law in general and its effective implementation, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which entails the non-application of national rules within the coordinated field, including national rules which implement Directive 2005/29/EC, (2) if the supplier of the service is established and supplies information society services from another Member State and there are no requirements to apply any exception flowing from those national provisions which implement Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31?

2.

Does the coordinated field cover, under Directive 2000/31/EC, the marketing on the seller’s website and the online sales of a product alleged to be labelled in breach of the requirements applicable to such goods in the purchasing consumer’s Member State?

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, are such requirements as apply to the delivery and the products themselves also excluded from the coordinated field, in accordance with Article 2(h)(ii) of Directive 2000/31/EC, where the delivery of the goods themselves constitutes a necessary step in the marketing and online sales, or is the delivery of the goods themselves to be deemed to constitute an element that is ancillary to and inseparable from the marketing and online sales?

4.

What weight, if any, does the fact that the requirements applicable to the goods themselves flow from national provisions which implement and supplement sector-specific EU legislation, including Article 8(2) of Directive 75/324/EEC (3) and Article 19(5) of Regulation No 1223/2009, (4) and which mean that the requirements applicable to the goods must be fulfilled in order for it to be possible for the goods to be released onto the market or supplied to end consumers in the Member State have in the consideration of Questions 2 and 3?

(1)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

(3)  Council Directive 75/324/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 40).

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/36

Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-275/19, PNB Banka v ECB

(Case C-99/23 P)

(2023/C 155/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

—

declare void the decision of the ECB, notified by letter of 14 February 2019, to conduct an on-site inspection at the appellant’s premises;

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal, and

—

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance, refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the judgement under appeal is procedurally flawed because the General Court did not deal appropriately with the issue of the representation of the appellant in the context of the procedure in front of the General Court.

The General Court erred when it assumed that an issue with respect to the integrity of the procedure in front of the General Court is not a problem as long as it can be argued that the problem would not exist if, hypothetically, Latvia complied with its obligations. It thereby violated the principle that legal protection must not be merely theoretical and illusory and thereby violated Article 47 of the Charter.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/37

Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-301/19, PNB Banka v ECB

(Case C-100/23 P)

(2023/C 155/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

—

declare void the decision of the ECB, notified by letter of 1 March 2019, to classify the appellant as a significant entity subject to its direct prudential supervision;

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal, and

—

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance, refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the judgement under appeal is procedurally flawed because the General Court did not deal appropriately with the issue of the representation of the appellant in the context of the procedure in front of the General Court.

The General Court erred when it assumed that an issue with respect to the integrity of the procedure in front of the General Court is not a problem as long as it can be argued that the problem would not exist if, hypothetically, Latvia complied with its obligations. It thereby violated the principle that legal protection must not be merely theoretical and illusory and thereby violated Article 47 of the Charter.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/37

Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-330/19, PNB Banka v ECB

(Case C-101/23 P)

(2023/C 155/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

—

declare void the decision, notified by letter of 21 March 2019, by which the ECB decided to oppose the transaction consisting of the acquisition of qualifying holdings in B;

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal, and

—

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance, refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the judgement under appeal is procedurally flawed because the General Court did not deal appropriately with the issue of the representation of the appellant in the context of the procedure in front of the General Court.

The General Court erred when it assumed that an issue with respect to the integrity of the procedure in front of the General Court is not a problem as long as it can be argued that the problem would not exist if, hypothetically, Latvia complied with its obligations. It thereby violated the principle that legal protection must not be merely theoretical and illusory and thereby violated Article 47 of the Charter.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-230/20, PNB Banka v ECB

(Case C-102/23 P)

(2023/C 155/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

—

declare void the decision of the ECB of 17 February 2020, ECB-SSM-220-LVPNB-1, WHD-2019-0016, withdrawing the appellant’s authorisation as a credit institution;

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal, and

—

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance, refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law alleging that the General Court erred with respect to the manner in which it dealt with the issue of the representation of the appellant. This plea consists of three parts.

First, the General Court erroneously excluded the first part of the licence withdrawal procedure from consideration, namely the preparation of the decision by the national competent authority.

Second, the General Court erred with respect to the judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923) by treating that judgement as if it changed the law and therefore failing to consider that the ECB had to rectify its previous failure to comply with the principles upheld by this judgement.

Third, the General Court erred as regards its assessment of the ECB’s conduct after the ECB changed its position following the judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923). The ECB therefore failed to implement the Court’s judgment in a good faith manner.

Second plea in law alleging that the judgement under appeal is procedurally flawed because the General Court did not deal appropriately with the issue of the representation of the appellant in the context of the procedure in front of the General Court.

The General Court erred when it assumed that an issue with respect to the integrity of the procedure in front of the General Court is not a problem as long as it can be argued that the problem would not exist if, hypothetically, Latvia complied with its obligations. It thereby violated the principle that legal protection must not be merely theoretical and illusory and thereby violated Article 47 of the Charter.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/39

Appeal brought on 15 February 2023 by Trasta Komercbanka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2022 in Case T-698/16, Trasta Komercbanka and Others v ECB

(Case C-103/23 P)

(2023/C 155/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Trasta Komercbanka AS (represented by: A. Rasa)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, Republic of Latvia, European Commission, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the judgment under appeal;

—

order the ECB to pay financial compensation in respect of the harm which the appellant has suffered as result of the ECB’s decision to revoke the appellant’s licence on 3 March 2016 and the related conduct which is described in this application;

—

determine that the material damage amounts to at least EUR 162 million together with a compensatory interest starting at 3 March 2016 until delivery of the judgment in the present case and with corresponding default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full;

—

order the ECB to bear the cost of the application pursuant to Articles 134 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court committed a series of procedural errors, which are grounds for annulment of the judgment.

Considering that there are doubts that Mr O. Behrends had a conflict of interest when acting for both Trasta Komercbanka AS and other applicants in the proceedings before the General Court, it is considered that the appellant’s right to a fair trial before the General Court was violated.

Also, in accordance with Latvian law, the proceedings may be taken over by Mr Igor Buimisters heirs.

Since the judgment under appeal therefore determines the obligation of Trasta Komercbanka AS to cover the costs of legal proceedings, it infringes on the rights of third parties — the creditors of Trasta Komercbanka AS. Thus, that judgment violates the rights of third parties who did not have the right to participate in the legal proceedings.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/40

Appeal brought on 2 March 2023 by E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-260/21, E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. v European Commission

(Case C-124/23 P)

(2023/C 155/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: E. Breuninger GmbH & Co (represented by: R. Velte, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 December 2022 in Case T-260/21, Breuninger v Commission, in so far as the action was dismissed and E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. KG was ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

—

rule on the substance of the case and annul the contested decision; in the alternative, if the Court of Justice does not rule on the matter, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and

—

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds:

First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU. In accordance with wording and objective thereof, the assessment of the effects of the contested decision must be based on the competition between brick-and-mortar retail production sectors affected by the lockdown and not on a company-wide approach which includes unaffected production sectors. The appellant argues that the General Court failed to recognise that, by favouring purely brick-and-mortar retailers to the detriment of ‘multi-channel’ retailers such as the appellant, the contested aid scheme significantly distorted competition in both brick-and-mortar and online retail.

Second, according to the appellant, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. It failed to appreciate that Article 107(3)(b) TFEU is an exception linked to the conditions for the application of Article 101(1) TFEU. As a result of this error of assessment, the General Court failed to recognise that the Commission erred in its assessment by failing to take into account the distorting effects of the aid scheme on competition. Furthermore, the selective nature of the aid resulting from the eligibility criterion of ‘company-wide decrease in turnover’ is in breach of the principle of equal treatment, because it treats the appellant differently despite it being affected by the closures in the production sector of ‘brick-and-mortar retail’ in the same way as the competitors in receipt of aid.

Third, the General Court erred in its interpretation and categorisation of the Commission’s Temporary Framework on which the contested aid scheme was based. The Temporary Framework does not require the viability of the undertakings affected by the lockdown to be threatened. The purpose of the aid is not to support undertakings in need, but rather to grant temporary support to affected undertakings to enable them to continue operating in the production sectors concerned and to avoid cost-intensive and irreversible restructuring. The Temporary Framework, therefore, does not provide for a company-wide assessment, but an assessment of the production sectors affected by closures.

Fourth, the appellant submits that the General Court also erred in law in its interpretation of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TFEU. The appellant submits that the eligibility criterion based on a company-wide assessment is not suitable or necessary to achieve the objective of the aid scheme, which is to enable production sectors affected by Covid-related closures to continue operating by compensating for uncovered fixed costs. Furthermore, the serious distortion of competition resulting from the underlying eligibility criterion is not suitable for achieving the — misdirected — objective of the aid scheme. The proportionality of the contested aid scheme cannot be justified solely on the basis of the requirement to use budgetary resources economically, particularly because the fixed-cost aid is granted to the beneficiary brick-and-mortar retailers irrespective of their productivity and capital resources.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/41

Appeal brought on 2 March 2023 by FALKE KGaA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-306/21, Falke KGaA v European Commission

(Case C-127/23 P)

(2023/C 155/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: FALKE KGaA (represented by: R. Velte, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 December 2022 in Case T-306/21, Falke v Commission, in so far as the action was dismissed (point 1 of the operative part of the judgment) and FALKE KGaA was ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission (point 2 of the operative part of the judgment);

—

rule on the substance of the case and annul the contested decision; in the alternative, if the Court of Justice does not rule on the matter, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and

—

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds:

First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU. In accordance with wording and objective thereof, the assessment of the effects of the contested decision must be based on the competition between brick-and-mortar retail production sectors affected by the lockdown and not on a company-wide approach which includes unaffected production sectors. The appellant argues that the General Court failed to recognise that, by favouring purely brick-and-mortar retailers to the detriment of ‘multi-channel’ retailers such as the appellant, the contested aid scheme significantly distorted competition in both brick-and-mortar and online retail.

Second, according to the appellant, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. It failed to appreciate that Article 107(3)(b) TFEU is an exception linked to the conditions for the application of Article 101(1) TFEU. As a result of this error of assessment, the General Court failed to recognise that the Commission erred in its assessment by failing to take into account the distorting effects of the aid scheme on competition. Furthermore, the selective nature of the aid resulting from the eligibility criterion of ‘company-wide decrease in turnover’ is in breach of the principle of equal treatment, because it treats the appellant differently despite it being affected by the closures in the production sector of ‘brick-and-mortar retail’ in the same way as the competitors in receipt of aid.

Third, the General Court erred in its interpretation and categorisation of the Commission’s Temporary Framework on which the contested aid scheme was based. The Temporary Framework does not require the viability of the undertakings affected by the lockdown to be threatened. The purpose of the aid is not to support undertakings in need, but rather to grant temporary support to affected undertakings to enable them to continue operating in the production sectors concerned and to avoid cost-intensive and irreversible restructuring. The Temporary Framework, therefore, does not provide for a company-wide assessment, but an assessment of the production sectors affected by closures.

Fourth, the appellant submits that the General Court also erred in law in its interpretation of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TFEU. The appellant submits that the eligibility criterion based on a company-wide assessment is not suitable or necessary to achieve the objective of the aid scheme, which is to enable production sectors affected by Covid-related closures to continue operating by compensating for uncovered fixed costs. Furthermore, the serious distortion of competition resulting from the underlying eligibility criterion is not suitable for achieving the — misdirected — objective of the aid scheme. The proportionality of the contested aid scheme cannot be justified solely on the basis of the requirement to use budgetary resources economically, particularly because the fixed-cost aid is granted to the beneficiary brick-and-mortar retailers irrespective of their productivity and capital resources.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/42

Action brought on 10 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-147/23)

(2023/C 155/54)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung, J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (1) and by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(1) and (3) of that directive;

—

Order the Republic of Poland to pay the Commission a lump sum, corresponding to the higher of the following two sums: (i) a daily rate of EUR 13 700 multiplied by the number of days between the date following that of the expiry of the deadline for transposition laid down in that directive and the date on which the legal infringement was remedied, or, in the event that it is not remedied, the date on which the present judgment is delivered; (ii) a minimum lump sum of EUR 3 836 000;

—

If the failure to fulfil obligations determined in point 1 lasts until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order the Republic of Poland to pay to the Commission penalty payments of EUR 53 430 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings until the date on which the Republic of Poland fulfils its obligations under that directive; and

—

Order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council lays down an effective system for the protection of persons who work in a private or public organisation or who are in contact with those organisations and who notify an infringement of EU law in certain areas. Pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Directive, Member States were supposed to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 17 December 2021. Under Article 26(3) of that directive, the Member States were also obliged to communicate to the Commission forthwith the text of those provisions.

On 27 January 2022, the Commission sent the Republic of Poland a letter of formal notice. On 15 July 2022, the Commission sent the Republic of Poland a reasoned opinion. However, the Republic of Poland has not thus far adopted or notified the measures necessary to transpose the directive.

(1)  OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/43

Action brought on 14 March 2023 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-149/23)

(2023/C 155/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and L. Mantl, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (1) and by failing in any event to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(1) and (3) of that directive;

—

Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the Commission a lump sum, corresponding to the higher of the following two sums: (i) a daily rate of EUR 61 600 multiplied by the number of days between the date following that of the expiry of the transposition period laid down in that directive and the date on which the infringement is remedied, or, in the event that it is not remedied, the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings; (ii) a minimum lump sum of EUR 17 248 000;

—

In the event that the failure to fulfil obligations referred to in point 1 persists until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 240 240 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings until the date on which the Federal Republic of Germany fulfils its obligations under that directive; and

—

Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission claims that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which aims to create an effective system for the protection of persons who work in a private or public organisation or are in contact with such an organisation when they notify an infringement of EU law in certain areas. Pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Directive, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 17 December 2021. Under Article 26(3) of that directive, the Member States were also obliged to communicate to the Commission forthwith the text of those provisions.

The Commission claims that the measures for the complete transposition of the directive have not yet been adopted and have not been communicated to the Commission more than 13 months following the expiry of the transposition period.

(1)  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/44

Action brought on 13 March 2023 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-150/23)

(2023/C 155/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, F. Blanc and T. Materne, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (1) and by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(1) and (3) of that directive;

—

Order Luxembourg to pay the Commission a lump sum, corresponding to the higher of the following two sums: (i) a daily rate of EUR 900 multiplied by the number of days between the date following that of the expiry of the deadline for transposition laid down in that directive and the date on which the legal infringement was remedied, or, in the event that it is not remedied, the date on which the present judgment is delivered; (ii) a minimum lump sum of EUR 252 000;

—

If the failure to fulfil obligations determined in point 1 lasts until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order Luxembourg to pay the Commission penalty payments of EUR 3 150 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings until the date on which Luxembourg fulfils its obligations under that directive; and

—

Order Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law lays down an effective system for the protection of persons who work in a private or public organisation or who are in contact with those organisations and who notify an infringement of EU law in certain areas.

Pursuant to Article 26(1) of the directive, Member States were supposed to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 17 December 2021. Under Article 26(3) of that directive, the Member States were also obliged to communicate to the Commission forthwith the text of those provisions.

On 21 January 2022, the Commission sent Luxembourg a letter of formal notice. On 15 July 2022, the Commission sent Luxembourg a reasoned opinion. However, Luxembourg has not thus far adopted or notified the measures necessary to transpose the directive.

(1)  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/45

Action brought on 13 March 2023 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-152/23)

(2023/C 155/57)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Salyková, J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law and by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(1) and (3) of that directive;

—

Order the Czech Republic to pay the Commission a lump sum, corresponding to the higher of the following two sums: (i) a daily rate of EUR 4 900 multiplied by the number of days between the date following that of the expiry of the deadline for transposition laid down in that directive and the date on which the legal infringement was remedied, or, in the event that it is not remedied, the date on which the present judgment is delivered; (ii) a minimum lump sum of EUR 1 372 000;

—

If the failure to fulfil obligations determined in point 1 lasts until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order the Czech Republic to pay the Commission penalty payments of EUR 19 110 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings until the date on which the Czech Republic fulfils its obligations under that directive; and

—

Order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council lays down an effective system for the protection of persons who work in a private or public organisation or who are in contact with those organisations and who notify an infringement of EU law in certain areas. Pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Directive, Member States were supposed to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 17 December 2021. Under Article 26(3) of that directive, the Member States were also obliged to communicate to the Commission forthwith the text of those provisions.

On 27 January 2022, the Commission sent the Czech Republic a letter of formal notice. On 15 July 2022, the Commission sent the Czech Republic a reasoned opinion. However, the Czech Republic has not thus far adopted or notified the measures necessary to transpose the directive.

(1)  OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/45

Action brought on 14 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-154/23)

(2023/C 155/58)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and L. Maran, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

(1)

declare that, by failing to adopt all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law and by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(1) and (3) of that directive;

(2)

order the Republic of Estonia to pay the Commission a lump sum, corresponding to the higher of the following two sums: (i) a daily rate of EUR 600 multiplied by the number of days between the date following that of the expiry of the period for transposition laid down in that directive and the date on which the infringement is remedied or, in the event that it is not remedied, the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings; (ii) a minimum lump sum of EUR 168 000;

(3)

if the failure established under paragraph 1 continues until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order the Republic of Estonia to pay the Commission penalty payments of EUR 2 340 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings until the Republic of Estonia has fulfilled its obligations under the Directive;

(4)

order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law lays down an effective system for the protection of persons who work in a private or public organisation or who are in contact with those organisations and who notify an infringement of EU law in certain areas.

Pursuant to Article 26(1) of that directive, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 17 December 2021. Under Article 26(3) of that directive, Member States were also obliged to communicate to the Commission forthwith the text of the provisions adopted.

As the Commission had not received from Estonia any communication of the adoption of the provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, it sent a letter of formal notice to Estonia on 27 January 2022. As the Republic of Estonia had not notified the transposition of the Directive, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Estonia by letter of 15 July 2022, requesting it to take the necessary measures to comply with the Directive within two months of the reasoned opinion being sent.

The Republic of Estonia has still not adopted the measures necessary to transpose the Directive in full or notified those measures to the Commission.

(1)  OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/46

Action brought on 14 March 2023 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-155/23)

(2023/C 155/59)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

(1)

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law and by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(1) and (3) of that directive;

(2)

Order Hungary to pay the Commission a lump sum, corresponding to the higher of the following two sums: (i) a daily rate of EUR 3 500 multiplied by the number of days between the date following that of the expiry of the transposition period laid down in that directive and the date on which the infringement is remedied, or, in the event that it is not remedied, the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings; (ii) a minimum lump sum of EUR 980 000;

(3)

In the event that the failure to fulfil obligations referred to in point 1 persists until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order Hungary to pay the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 13 650 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings until the date on which Hungary fulfils its obligations under that directive; and

(4)

Order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons reporting breaches of Union law lays down an effective system for the protection of persons who work in or in connection with the private or public sector when they notify an infringement of EU law in certain areas. Pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Directive, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 17 December 2021. Under Article 26(3) of that directive, the Member States were also obliged to communicate to the Commission forthwith the text of those provisions.

On 27 January 2022, the Commission sent Hungary a letter of formal notice. On 22 July 2022, the Commission sent Hungary a reasoned opinion. However, Hungary has not yet adopted or notified the measures necessary to transpose the directive.

(1)  OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17.

General Court

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/48

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Sánchez-Gavito León v Council and Commission

(Case T-100/21) (1)

(International Cotton Advisory Committee - Decision (EU) 2017/876 - Staff of an international organisation to which the European Union has acceded - Agreement on the applicant’s conditions of departure - Actions for failure to act - Absence in part of invitation to act - No standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility - Liability - Causal link)

(2023/C 155/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maria del Carmen Sánchez-Gavito León (Reston, Virginia, United States), (represented by: M. Veissiere, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, M. Bauer and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and M. Monfort, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Articles 265 and 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, a declaration that the failure to act of the Council of the European Union and of the European Commission was unlawful in so far as those institutions unlawfully refrained from acting following the formal call for action addressed to them by the applicant, a Spanish national and former staff member of the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) to which the European Union acceded by the adoption of Council Decision (EU) 2017/876 of 18 May 2017 on the accession of the European Union to the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) (OJ 2017 L 134, p. 23) and, second, compensation for the harm she allegedly suffered on account of the conduct of the Council, of the Commission and of their agents, which she claims failed to act even though they were aware of the harassment to which the applicant claims she was subjected by the Executive Director of the ICAC (‘the Executive Director’) and that director’s failure to adhere to the agreement on the applicant’s conditions of departure from the ICAC (‘the agreement on the conditions of departure’), and the absence of any means of redress by which the applicant could state her claim.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Ms María del Carmen Sánchez-Gavito León to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/48

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Bulgaria v Commission

(Case T-235/21) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Bulgaria - Promotional activities - OLAF investigation report - Conformity clearance - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 155/61)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Mitova and L. Zaharieva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Koleva, J. Aquilina and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the Republic of Bulgaria seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/261, of 17 February 2021, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it concerns certain expenditure that the Republic of Bulgaria incurred.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/49

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Sympatex Technologies v EUIPO — Liwe Española (Sympathy Inside)

(Case T-372/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Sympathy Inside - Earlier EU word mark INSIDE. - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No alteration of distinctive character)

(2023/C 155/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sympatex Technologies GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Liwe Española, SA (Puente Tocinos, Spain) (represented by: Á. Pérez Lluna, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 April 2021 (Case R 1777/2018-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Sympatex Technologies GmbH to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/50

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Assaad v Council

(Case T-426/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Errors of assessment - Retroactivity - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Force of res judicata)

(2023/C 155/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nizar Assaad (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester KC, G. Martin and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Haas and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/751 of 6 May 2021 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2021 L 160, p. 115), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/743 of 6 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2021 L 160, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/849 of 30 May 2022 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2022 L 148, p. 52), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/840 of 30 May 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2022 L 148, p. 8), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/751 of 6 May 2021 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning the restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/743 of 6 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/849 of 30 May 2022 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/840 of 30 May 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they concern Mr Nizar Assaad;

2.

Orders that the effects of Decision 2022/849 be maintained with regard to Mr Assaad until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until any dismissal of the appeal;

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/51

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — The a2 Milk Company (A 2)

(Case T-759/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark A 2 - Earlier international registration - Figurative mark THE a2 MILK COMPANY THE a2 MILK COMPANY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 155/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The a2 Milk Company Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: M. Hawkins, T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, 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 15 October 2021 (Case R 2447/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/51

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — SE v Commission

(Case T-763/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Commission’s pilot programme for recruiting junior administrators - Rejection of application - Eligibility conditions - Criterion of a maximum of three years of professional experience - Equal treatment - Discrimination based on age)

(2023/C 155/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SE (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, L. Vernier and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 23 April 2021 by which the Commission rejected his application for the pilot ‘Junior Professionals Programme’ (‘the JPP’) and, second, compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders SE to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/52

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — PS v EIB

(Case T-65/22) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Social security - Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Total and permanent invalidity - Occupational nature of the disease - Contract concluded with an insurance company - Extent of the obligations to be met by the EIB)

(2023/C 155/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PS (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: K. Carr and E. Manoukian, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 12 July 2021, in so far as it refused the applicant payment of EUR 233 500 in respect of material and non-material damage suffered; second, an order that the EIB pay the applicant compensation in respect of the occupational disease from which he claims to be suffering; and, third, an order that the EIB pay the sum of EUR 24 000 as compensation in respect of the alleged non-material damage in view of the state of the applicant’s health.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders PS to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/52

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Novasol v ECHA

(Case T-70/22) (1)

(REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Request for evidence demonstrating the status of a SME - Refusal to provide certain information - Decision ordering the recovery of the uncollected amount of the total fees payable and imposing an administrative charge - Concept of ‘related undertaking’ - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 155/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Novasol (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: C. Alter and G. Bouton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: F. Becker, S. Mahoney and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by A. Guillerme, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of decision SME D (2021) 8531-DC of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 25 November 2021, finding that the applicant had failed to adduce the evidence necessary to benefit from the fee reduction provided for medium-sized enterprises and therefore requesting that the applicant pay the difference between the amount of the fee that it had already paid and the amount of the fee applicable to large enterprises, together with an administrative fee in the amount of EUR 19 900.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Novasol to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/53

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-90/22) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2023/C 155/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

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

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Mr Alex Kande Mupompa to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/54

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-92/22) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2023/C 155/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021, implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Mr Gabriel Amisi Kumba to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/54

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-93/22) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Change of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2023/C 155/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

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

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021, implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021, implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in so far as those acts concern Mr Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary;

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/55

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-95/22) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2023/C 155/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021, implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Mr Célestin Kanyama to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/56

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023– Kampete v Council

(Case T-96/22) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2023/C 155/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021, implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Mr Ilunga Kampete to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/56

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-98/22) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2023/C 155/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

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

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021, implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Mr Évariste Boshab to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/57

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Gönenç v EUIPO — Solar (termorad ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR)

(Case T-172/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TERMORAD ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR - Earlier Benelux word mark THERMRAD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 155/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Salim Selahaddin Gönenç (Konya, Türkiye) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Solar A/S (Vejen, Denmark) (represented by L. Elmgaard Sørensen, lawyer)

Re:

By his 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 18 January 2022 (Case R 770/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Mr Salim Selahaddin Gönenç to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred in the present proceedings by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Solar A/S.

(1)  OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/58

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Prigozhina v Council

(Case T-212/22) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list - Family of a person responsible for actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, or stability or security in Ukraine - Concept of ‘association’ - Error of assessment)

(2023/C 155/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Violetta Prigozhina (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 42I, p. 98), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 42I, p. 3), in so far as her name was included on the lists of persons and entities appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 42I, p. 98) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 42I, p. 3), in so far as the name of Violetta Prigozhina was included on the lists of persons and entities appearing in the Annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014;

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Violetta Prigozhina.

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/59

Order of the President of the General Court of 28 February 2023 — Telefónica de España v Commission

(Case T-170/22 R-RENV)

(Interim relief - Public supply contracts - Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA) - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case)

(2023/C 155/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González-Díaz and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers, and by P. Stuart, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: BT Global Services Belgium BV (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: V. Dor, A. Lepièce and M. Vilain XIIII, lawyers)

Re:

By its application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Commission of 21 January 2022 relating to the tendering procedure DIGIT/A 3/PR/2019/010, entitled ‘Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA)’, informing it that its tender had not been successful in the public procurement procedure and announcing the imminent signing of a contract with the successful tenderer and, secondly, an order requiring the Commission to suspend the signing of that contract.

Operative part of the order

1.

The application for interim measures is refused.

2.

The order of 1 April 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission (T-170/22 R), is cancelled.

3.

The costs are reserved.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/59

Order of the President of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Mazepin v Council

(Case T-743/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in respect of Russian actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Application for interim measures - Prima facie case - Urgency - Weighing up of interests)

(2023/C 155/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nikita Dmitrievich Mazepin (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Moretto, V. Villante, T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Rurarz and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks (i) suspension of the operation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1), and the Council measure of 15 September 2022 maintaining his name on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by the restrictive measures provided for by Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16), as amended, and by Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6), as amended, in so far as those measures prevent him from negotiating his recruitment as a professional Formula 1 driver or as a driver in other motor sport championships taking place also or only in the European Union, as well as from participating in Formula 1 Grand Prix, tests, training sessions and free sessions and in other motor sport championships, races, tests, training sessions and free sessions taking place in the European Union, and (ii) the grant of any appropriate interim measures which would enable him to negotiate his recruitment as a professional Formula 1 driver or as a driver in other motor sport championships taking place also or only in the European Union, to be recruited as a driver by teams participating in the relevant championships as well as to exercise his rights and perform obligations under the relevant recruitment, including to participate in Formula 1 Grand Prix, tests, training sessions and free sessions and in other motor sport championships, races, tests, training sessions and free sessions taking place in the European Union.

Operative part of the order

1.

The operation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and the Council measure of 15 September 2022 maintaining the name of Mr Nikita Dmitrievich Mazepin on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by the restrictive measures provided for by Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as amended, and by Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as amended, is suspended in so far as the name of Mr Mazepin was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures and only to the extent necessary to enable him to negotiate his recruitment as a professional Formula 1 driver or as a driver in other motor sport championships taking place also or only in the European Union, as well as to participate in Formula 1 Grand Prix, tests, training sessions and free sessions and in other motor sport championships, races, tests, training sessions and free sessions taking place in the European Union. To that end, Mr Mazepin is authorised only (i) to enter the European Union in order to negotiate and conclude agreements with a race team or with sponsors not linked to the activities of Mr Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin or to natural or legal persons whose names are included on the lists set out in the annexes to Decision 2014/145 and Regulation No 269/2014, (ii) to enter the European Union in order to participate as a full or reserve driver in Formula 1 championships of the Fédération internationale de l’automobile (FIA) (International Automobile Association (FIA)) or in other championships, training sessions, tests or free sessions, also with a view to obtaining the renewal of his Super Licence, (iii) to enter the European Union in order to undergo the medical examinations required by the FIA or his race team, (iv) to enter the European Union in order to participate in racing, sponsorship and promotion events at the request of his race team or sponsors, (v) to open a bank account in which a salary, bonuses, benefits from his race team and financial contributions from the sponsors accepted by his team can be paid to him and, (vi) to use the bank account and a credit card only to cover those costs that enable a professional driver to travel in the European Union, to negotiate and conclude agreements with a race team or with sponsors and to participate in championships, Grand Prix, races, training sessions, tests or free sessions in the Member States of the European Union.

Should he be recruited as a Formula 1 driver or as a driver in other motor sport championships taking place also or only in the European Union, Mr Mazepin must undertake to race under a neutral flag and to sign the Driver Commitment required by the FIA for that purpose.

2.

The costs are reserved.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/61

Action brought on 20 February 2023 — VP v Parliament

(Case T-83/23)

(2023/C 155/78)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: VP (represented by: M. Brzozowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Decision No D 314619 of the President of the European Parliament of 16 December 2022 finding that the applicant had engaged in psychological harassment in relation to an accredited parliamentary assistant;

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to good administration;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/61

Action brought on 20 February 2023 — D’Agostino v ECB

(Case T-90/23)

(2023/C 155/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Aldo D’Agostino (Naples, Italy) (represented by: M. De Siena, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

find and declare that the European Central Bank (ECB), represented by the President Christine Lagarde, is non-contractually liable:

(a)

for having caused a EUR 841 809,34 collapse in the value of the securities owned by Aldo D’Agostino titled SI FTSE.COPERP amounting to a loss equal to 99,47 % of the entire value of the capital invested, namely EUR 846 198,90, in so far as, on 12 March 2020, Christine Lagarde, in her capacity as President of the ECB, used the infamous phrase ‘We are not here to close spreads, this is not the function or the mission of the ECB’ and thereby caused a significant reduction in the value of securities on stock exchanges around the world and a reduction of 16,92 % on the Milan Stock Exchange, namely in a percentage never before seen in the history of that institution; the phrase was used in a press conference broadcast globally, and confirmed that the ECB would no longer guarantee the value of securities issued by countries in difficulty and, therefore, signalled a massive change in the direction of the monetary policy that had been adopted by the ECB under the presidency of the previous President, whose mandate finished in November 2019;

(b)

for having caused a reduction in the value of the applicant’s assets through that conduct and as a result of the huge drop in the index of the Milan Stock Exchange;

(c)

for having caused financial loss of EUR 841 809,34 in the form of actual loss and of EUR 998 683,90 in the form of loss of profit;

(d)

for having caused financial loss amounting to EUR 1 840 493,24 in total;

(e)

for having caused non-financial loss in the form of the psychological suffering of the applicant and the applicant’s family and damage to honour, reputation and personal and professional identity quantifiable at EUR 1 000 000,00;

(f)

for having caused a loss of opportunity;

—

order the ECB, in the person of the President for the time being, to provide to Aldo D’Agostino compensation for financial loss (comprising actual loss and loss of profit), the non-financial loss outlined above and a loss of opportunity, assessed according to the criteria set out in the relevant chapters and paragraphs of the application, by making payments in the following amounts:

—

EUR 1 840 493,24 for financial loss;

—

EUR 1 000 000,00 for non-material loss;

—

and, therefore, a total amount of EUR 2 840 493,24;

—

the amount which the Court assesses, according to its own unbiased assessment, in respect of the loss of opportunity;

—

the amount of default interest calculated from 12 March 2020, the date of the event that gave rise to the loss, to the date on which the compensation is actually paid;

—

in the alternative, compensate the applicant by ordering the ECB, in the person of the President for the time being, to pay compensation for the categories of loss listed above, in amounts different from those above, established in the course of proceedings, to the extent deemed fair, including by having recourse to an expert’s report commissioned by the Court, pursuant to Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union;

—

plus default interest to be calculated from 12 March 2020, date of the event that gave rise to the loss, to the date on which the compensation is actually paid;

—

order the defendant to pay the legal costs.

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 ECB is liable under the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 2043 of the Codice civile (Italian Civil Code) for the financial and non-material loss suffered by the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, which refers to principles established in the case-law of the European Union, in particular in the judgments of 28 October 2021, Vialto Consulting v Commission (C-650/19 P, EU:C:2021:879), of 9 February 2022, QI and Others v Commission and ECB (T-868/16, EU:T:2022:58) and of 21 January 2014, Klein v Commission (T-309/10, EU:T:2014:19).

The applicant sets out the conditions which must be satisfied for an EU institution to incur non-contractual liability vis-à-vis an EU citizen and alleges that those conditions are satisfied in the present case.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of primary and secondary EU law and abuse of power by the President.

The applicant alleges that, on 12 March 2020, the ECB, acting through its President, infringed Article 127 TFEU under Chapter 2, which is headed ‘Monetary Policy’, Articles 3, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 38 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and Article 17.2 and 17.3 of the Rules of Procedure adopted by a decision of the ECB on 19 February 2004. . (1) The applicant claims, by referring to an annexed technical report, that the three conditions that must be satisfied for the ECB to incur liability, have been satisfied and that there is no other cause for the losses.

4.

The fourth plea in law quantifies, substantiates and documents the financial loss, non-material loss and loss of opportunity suffered by the applicant.

(1)  Decision 2004/257/EC of the European Central Bank of 19 February 2004 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank (ECB/2004/2) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 33), as amended by Decision ECB/2014/1 of the European Central Bank of 22 January 2014 (OJ 2014 L 95, p. 56).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/63

Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Stan v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-103/23)

(2023/C 155/80)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Victor-Constantin Stan (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A. Şandru, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the Permanent Chamber of 9 December 2022, in criminal case No 1.000026/2022 opened by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the decision of the Permanent Chamber’ or ‘the contested decision’) and subsequent acts, as unlawful and unfounded, by reason of the arguments put forward in the present action, and if necessary declare inapplicable the provisions of the internal rules of procedure of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office which conflict with Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits, in essence, that the decision of the Permanent Chamber No 4, being challenged, was issued in breach of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), which, as regards the composition of the Permanent Chamber, requires there to be two permanent Members in addition to the Chair. The contested decision was issued by a Permanent Chamber comprising only one permanent Member in addition to the Chair and to the supervising European Prosecutor who participated in the decision’s adoption.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/63

Action brought on 22 February 2023 — UY v Commission

(Case T-108/23)

(2023/C 155/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: UY (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul:

—

Commission Implementing Decision (1) of 3 October 2022 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Spikevax — elasomeran’, a medicinal product for human use, and repealing Decision C(2021) 94(final), as amended and supplemented, and the previous Implementing Decisions required by that decision;

—

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 (2) as regards advanced therapy medicinal products — last sentence of point 2.1. of Part IV of Annex I;

—

Commission Directive 2009/120/EC of 14 September 2009 amending Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use as regards advanced therapy medicinal products (3) — Annex concerning the last sentence of point 2.1. of Part IV.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following five pleas in law:

1.

First plea in law, alleging the grossest infringement of Articles 8, 11, 26, 54, 58, 59, 86 et seq. and 101 et seq. of, and Part I, Part III and Part IV of Annex I to, Directive 2001/83/EC, of Articles 3 to 7, 10a, 12 and 14-a of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, (4) and of the United Nations Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, due to circumvention of the high testing standards envisaged for gene-based medicinal products

—

The application of the provisions governing marketing authorisation laid down in respect of advanced therapy medicinal products was precluded, even though the substances concerned, which were declared as vaccines against infectious diseases, in fact correspond to gene therapy medicinal products.

—

There was, in any event, a failure to ensure the involvement in the marketing authorisation procedure of the EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies, which was specifically required solely on the basis of the genetic structure and mode of action of the substance, regardless of its classification as a gene therapy medicinal product.

—

The conditions for marketing authorisation laid down in respect of vaccines based on genetic engineering were, in any event, infringed.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the grossest infringement of Articles 8, 11, 26, 54, 58, 59, 86 et seq. and 101 et seq. of, and Part I, Part III and Part IV of Annex I to, Directive 2001/83/EC, of Articles 3 to 7, 10a, 12, 14, 14a, 20, 20a, 25a, 57, 81 and 84a of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, and of Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 (5)

The initial marketing authorisation for Spikevax (Moderna), which was only conditional, was converted by the European Commission, on the recommendation of the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), into a marketing authorisation which is no longer conditional, or a marketing authorisation not subject to specific obligations, notwithstanding the omission of the most fundamental studies.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (6)

Since 2021, an illegal pharmacological-genetic experiment with criminal law implications has been carried out on the entire population of the European Union.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Implementing Decisions are invalid due to abuse and infringement of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Implementing Decisions are invalid due to gross infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and of Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

(1)  C(2022)7163 (final).

(2)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

(3)  OJ 2009 L 242, p. 3.

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Union procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 92, p. 6).

(6)  Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC (OJ 2014 L 158, p. 1).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/65

Action brought on 23 February 2023 — UY v Commission

(Case T-109/23)

(2023/C 155/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: UY (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul:

—

Commission Implementing Decision (1) of 10 October 2022 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Comirnaty — tozinameran, COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside-modified)’, a medicinal product for human use, and repealing Decision C(2020) 9598(final), as amended and supplemented, and the previous Implementing Decisions required by that decision;

—

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 (2) as regards advanced therapy medicinal products — last sentence of point 2.1. of Part IV of Annex I;

—

Commission Directive 2009/120/EC of 14 September 2009 amending Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use as regards advanced therapy medicinal products (3) — Annex concerning the last sentence of point 2.1. of Part IV.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following five pleas in law:

1.

First plea in law, alleging the grossest infringement of Articles 8, 11, 26, 54, 58, 59, 86 et seq. and 101 et seq. of, and Part I, Part III and Part IV of Annex I to, Directive 2001/83/EC, of Articles 3 to 7, 10a, 12 and 14-a of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, (4) and of the United Nations Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, due to circumvention of the high testing standards envisaged for gene-based medicinal products

—

The application of the provisions governing marketing authorisation laid down in respect of advanced therapy medicinal products was precluded, even though the substances concerned, which were declared as vaccines against infectious diseases, in fact correspond to gene therapy medicinal products.

—

There was, in any event, a failure to ensure the involvement in the marketing authorisation procedure of the EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies, which was specifically required solely on the basis of the genetic structure and mode of action of the substance, regardless of its classification as a gene therapy medicinal product.

—

The conditions for marketing authorisation laid down in respect of vaccines based on genetic engineering were, in any event, infringed.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the grossest infringement of Articles 8, 11, 26, 54, 58, 59, 86 et seq. and 101 et seq. of, and Part I, Part III and Part IV of Annex I to, Directive 2001/83/EC, of Articles 3 to 7, 10a, 12, 14, 14a, 20, 20a, 25a, 57, 81 and 84a of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, and of Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 (5)

The initial marketing authorisation for Comirnaty (BioNTech), which was only conditional, was converted by the European Commission, on the recommendation of the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), into a marketing authorisation which is no longer conditional, or a marketing authorisation not subject to specific obligations, notwithstanding the omission of the most fundamental studies.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (6)

Since 2021, an illegal pharmacological-genetic experiment with criminal law implications has been carried out on the entire population of the European Union.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Implementing Decisions are invalid due to abuse and infringement of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Implementing Decisions are invalid due to gross infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and of Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

(1)  C(2022)7342 (final).

(2)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

(3)  OJ 2009 L 242, p. 3.

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Union procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 92, p. 6).

(6)  Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC (OJ 2014 L 158, p. 1).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/66

Action brought on 3 March 2023 — Insider v EUIPO — Alaj (in Insajderi)

(Case T-119/23)

(2023/C 155/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Insider LLC (Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo) (represented by: M. Ketler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Florim Alaj (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark in Insajderi — Application for registration No 18 255 587

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 December 2022 in Case R 1152/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court for the purposes of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—

Violations of procedural rules regarding the proceedings before EUIPO;

—

Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/67

Action brought on 3 March 2023 — UZ v Commission and ECHA

(Case T-121/23)

(2023/C 155/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UZ (represented by: H. Estreicher, A. Bartl and M. Escorneboueu, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission, European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

—

annul decision of the European Commission (grow.f.1(2022)9602146) dated 21 December 2022, and the appended report from ECHA, concerning the denial of a request by Concawe, acting on behalf of its members (including the applicant), to reconsider the listing of the substance phenanthrene as a Substance of Very High Concern;

—

order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the European Commission by not giving a mandate to ECHA to prepare a dossier to re-evaluate the listing of phenanthrene in the Candidate List, despite the fact that both the nature of the new information and the report from ECHA indicated that the new information was relevant for the re-evaluation.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendants acted ultra vires and/or breached Article 59 REACH by carrying out a definitive re-assessment of phenanthrene delisting, instead of limiting their assessment to the question whether the new information is reliable and relevant for the re-evaluation.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/68

Action brought on 6 March 2023 — Ege İhracatçıları Birliği and Others v Commission

(Case T-122/23)

(2023/C 155/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ege İhracatçıları Birliği (Konak, Türkiye), Akdeniz İhracatçıları Birliği (Yenişehir, Türkiye), İstanbul İhracatçıları Birliği (Yenibosna, Türkiye), Doğu Karadeniz İhracatçıları Birliği (Ortahisar, Türkiye), Denizli İhracatçıları Birliği (Pamukkale, Türkiye), Abalıoğlu Balık ve Gıda Ürünleri AŞ (Honaz, Türkiye), Bağcı Balık Gıda ve Enerji Üretimi Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Köyceğiz, Türkiye), Ertuğ Balık Üretim Tesisi Gıda ve Tarım İşletmeleri Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Bornova, Türkiye), Gümüşdoğa Su Ürünleri Üretim İhracat ve İthalat AŞ (Milas, Turquie), Kemal Balıkçılık İhracat Limited Şirketi (Sancaktepe, Türkiye), Kılıç Deniz Ürünleri Üretimi İhracat ve İthalat AŞ (Bodrum, Türkiye), Kuzuoğlu Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Merkez, Türkiye), Liman Entegre Balıkçılık Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi (Maltepe, Türkiye), More Su Ürünleri Ticaret AŞ (Bornova, Türkiye), Ömer Yavuz Balıkçılık Su Ürünleri ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi (Merkez, Türkiye), Özpekler İnşaat Taahhüt Dayanıklı Tüketim Malları Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi (Merkezefendi, Türkiye), Premier Kültür Balıkçılığı Yatırım ve Pazarlama AŞ (Maltepe, Türkiye), Selina Balık İşleme Tesisi İthalat İhracat Ticaret AŞ (Seydikemer, Türkiye), Uluturhan Balıkçılık Turizm Ticaret Limited Şirketi (Dinar, Türkiye), Yavuzlar Otomotiv Balıkçılık Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi (Pamukkale, Türkiye) (represented by: G. Coppo and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2390 of 7 December 2022 amending the definitive countervailing duty imposed on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/823 following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)(the Contested Regulation), insofar as the applicants are concerned;

—

Order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation infringes Articles 1(1), 3(2), 5 and 7 of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission failed to carry out a pass-through analysis with regard to the subsidy per kg of purchased trout.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation infringes Article 22(6) of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission applied a new methodology for the determination of the subsidy amount per kg of purchased trout.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation infringes Article 1(1), 3(2), 5 and 7 of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission committed manifest errors in the calculation of the subsidy amount per kg of purchased trout.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation infringes Article 22(6) of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission included large trout in the calculation of the subsidy amount per kg of purchased trout.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation infringes Articles 1(1), 3(2), 5 and 7 of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission included large trout in the calculation of the subsidy amount per kg of purchased trout.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation infringes Article 3 of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission concluded that certain export contingent loans granted to Gümüşdoğa by private banks should be attributed to the Government of Türkiye.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation infringes Article 5, 7(2) and 7(4) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed manifest errors in Gümüşdoğa’s subsidy margin calculation.

(1)  OJ 2022, L 316, p. 52.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/69

Action brought on 9 March 2023 — VC v EU-OSHA

(Case T-126/23)

(2023/C 155/86)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: VC (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and S. Centeno Huerta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

in accordance with 263 TFEU, annul, in its entirety, Decision 2023/01 of 18 January 2023 of the interim Executive Director of EU-OSHA on exclusion of the applicant from participation in procedures for public procurement, grants, prizes, awards and financial instruments covered by the general budget of the European Union and from participation in award procedures covered by the European Development Fund (EDF) on the basis of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877; (1)

—

in the alternative, in accordance with Article 261 TFEU and Article 143(9) of Regulation 2018/1046 (2) (‘the Financial Regulation’), replace the exclusion measure with a financial penalty and/or annul Article 4 of the contested decision relating to the publication measure;

—

order EU-OSHA to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of Regulation 966/2012, (3) as amended by Regulation 2015/1929 (4) (‘the Financial Regulation applicable from January 2016), the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the rule of law declared in Article 19(1) TEU, the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU, and infringement of Article 325(1) TFEU. The applicant alleges that the contested decision did not respect the suspension decision adopted by the competent national judicial authority.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(7)(a) of the Financial Regulation applicable from January 2016 (equivalent to Article 136(6)(a) of the Financial Regulation), and serious errors of assessment. The applicant alleges that the competent authorising officer, as a result of serious errors of assessment, found that the corrective actions taken by the applicant were insufficient not to apply the exclusion measure.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(3) and (7)(a) and (d) of the Financial Regulation applicable from January 2016, and of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the competent authorising officer made manifest errors of assessment.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 140(1) of the Financial Regulation (equivalent to Article 106(16) of the Financial Regulation applicable from January 2016), of Article 140(2)(b) of the Financial Regulation (equivalent to Article 106(17)(b) of the Financial Regulation applicable from January 2016) and of Article 136(3) of the Financial Regulation, on the ground that there is a lack of reasons for the publication decision.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(13)(a) of the Financial Regulation applicable from January 2016. The applicant alleges that the competent authorising officer did not consider the application of a financial penalty as an alternative to the exclusion decision, therefore the decision must be annulled on the ground that it lacks reasoning. In any event, the applicant requests the Court, in the event that the latter decides not to annul the contested decision in its entirety, to replace the exclusion measure with a penalty that is reasonable in the light of the circumstances of the case, in accordance with Article 261 TFEU and Article 143(9) of the Financial Regulation.

(1)  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).

(2)  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).

(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).

(4)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1).

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/70

Action brought on 9 March 2023 — eClear v Commission

(Case T-127/23)

(2023/C 155/87)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: eClear AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Thomas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the implied rejection of 4 January 2023 of the applicant’s request for access to Commission documents of 14 September 2022 — Reference GESTDEM No 2022/5489 — by which it seeks access to all binding tariff information decisions since 2004;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(1) of Regulation 1049/2001. (1) According to the applicant:

—

the requested binding tariff information decisions are documents within the meaning of Regulation 1049/2001.

—

In its decision on the initial application, the Commission failed to take into account that binding tariff information decisions in hard copy were sent to it in the past, all of which came within the concept of documents in Regulation 1049/2001.

—

The Commission incorrectly assumes that the invalid binding tariff information decisions that can no longer be accessed online by the public are not documents within the meaning of Regulation 1049/2001. The binding tariff information database as a whole is a document that can be made accessible to the applicant.

—

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the individual binding tariff information decisions are also documents within the meaning of the regulation because EU officials can access them though the tools available to them.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to the applicant:

—

if the design of the database for binding tariff information decisions leads to invalid decisions no longer coming within the concept of documents in Regulation 1049/2001, this constitutes an infringement of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Commission cannot rely on it.

—

There is no doubt that valid binding tariff information decisions that are available on the database are documents within the meaning of Regulation 1049/2001.

—

If the actual conduct — in the present case, programming of a database — of an EU institution led to certain documents falling outside the scope of Regulation 1049/2001, this constitutes breach of the right of access to the documents of the institutions. The breach is to be examined in the light of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

—

In the present case, there does not appear to be any legal basis allowing the Commission to remove binding tariff information decisions from the scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights after their expiry.

—

Furthermore, it is not apparent which private or public interests, within the meaning of Article 15(3) TFEU, were advanced by the infringement of with Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

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

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/71

Action brought on 9 March 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v European Data Protection Board

(Case T-128/23)

(2023/C 155/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, M. Braun and A. Vallery, lawyers, P. Nolan, B. Johnston, C. Monaghan and D. Breatnach, Solicitors, D. McGrath, E. Egan McGrath and H. Godfrey, Barristers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board (EDPB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the EDPB’s Binding Decision 4/2022 on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Instagram service (Art. 65 GDPR) adopted on 5 December 2022, in total or, in the alternative, in its relevant parts, and

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65 GDPR.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 6(1)(b) GDPR by interpreting the concept of contractual necessity overly narrowly and applying this incorrect legal standard based on an incorrect interpretation of Meta Ireland’s Terms of Use.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed the right to good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the EDPB failed to act as an impartial body.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EDPB violated Article 83 GDPR and various underlying principles governing the determination of fines under the GDPR.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/72

Action brought on 9 March 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v European Data Protection Board

(Case T-129/23)

(2023/C 155/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: H. Kamann, F. Louis, M. Braun and A. Vallery, lawyers, P. Nolan, B. Johnston, C. Monaghan and D. Breatnach, Solicitors, D. McGrath, E. Egan McGrath and H. Godfrey, Barristers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board (EDPB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the EDPB’s Binding Decision 3/2022 on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Facebook service (Art. 65 GDPR) adopted on 5 December 2022, in total or, in the alternative, in its relevant parts; and,

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65 GDPR.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 6(1)(b) GDPR by interpreting the concept of contractual necessity overly narrowly and applying this incorrect legal standard based on an incorrect interpretation of Meta Ireland’s Terms of Service.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed the right to good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the EDPB failed to act as an impartial body.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EDPB violated Article 83 GDPR and various underlying principles governing the determination of fines under the GDPR.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/73

Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Nike Innovate v EUIPO — Puma (FOOTWARE)

(Case T-130/23)

(2023/C 155/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: J.-C. Rebling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FOOTWARE — European Union trade mark No 18 035 847

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2023 in Case R 2173/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

uphold the decision of the EUIPO Cancellation Division to maintain the registration in its entirety;

—

order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

—

The Board of Appeal infringed and misapplied Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by misinterpreting the nature of a suitable characteristic that can fall foul of this provision;

—

The Board of Appeal infringed and misapplied Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by not considering the varying ways in which the mark would be perceived in relation to the broad scope of individual goods and services covered by the registration;

—

The Board of Appeal infringed and misapplied Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by not considering properly how the mark would be perceived in relation to the goods by different consumer groups with different knowledge of the English language and how that linguistic understanding would impact on their perception of the mark;

—

The Board of Appeal misapplied Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and infringed Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

—

The Board of Appeal infringed Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

2.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/74

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2023 — Aitana v EUIPO

(Case T-355/22) (1)

(2023/C 155/91)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.8.2022.