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

(2022/C 207/01)

Last publication

OJ C 198, 16.5.2022

Past publications

OJ C 191, 10.5.2022

OJ C 171, 25.4.2022

OJ C 165, 19.4.2022

OJ C 158, 11.4.2022

OJ C 148, 4.4.2022

OJ C 138, 28.3.2022

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — BN, DM, EN v Getin Noble Bank S.A.

(Case C-132/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Article 267 TFEU - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ - Article 19(1) TEU - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Rule of law - Effective judicial protection - Principle of judicial independence - Tribunal previously established by law - Judicial body, a member of which was appointed for the first time to the position of judge by a political body within the executive branch of an undemocratic regime - Way in which the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary, Poland) operates - Unconstitutionality of the law on the basis of which that council was composed - Whether that body is to be considered to be an impartial and independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law)

(2022/C 207/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BN, DM, EN

Defendant: Getin Noble Bank S.A.

Intervening party: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

1.

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the circumstance that a judge’s initial appointment in a Member State to such a position or subsequent appointment to a higher court resulted from a decision adopted by a body of an undemocratic regime in place in that Member State prior to its accession to the European Union, including where that judge’s appointments to courts after the regime ended were based, inter alia, on the length of service acquired by that judge when that regime was in place or where the judge took a judicial oath only when first appointed to judicial office by a body of that regime, is not capable per se of giving rise to legitimate and serious doubts, in the minds of individuals, as to the independence and impartiality of that judge or, consequently, of calling into question the status as an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law of a court formation which includes that judge.

2.

The second paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding the formation of a court of a Member State which includes a judge whose initial appointment as a judge or subsequent appointment to a higher court was made either following that judge’s selection as a candidate for a judicial position by a body composed on the basis of legislative provisions subsequently declared unconstitutional by the constitutional court of that Member State or following that judge’s selection as a candidate for a judicial position by a body properly composed but following a procedure that was neither transparent nor public nor open to challenge before the courts, provided that such irregularities are not of such a kind and of such gravity as to create a real risk that other branches of the State, in particular the executive, could exercise undue discretion undermining the integrity of the outcome of the appointment process and thus give rise to serious and legitimate doubts, in the minds of individuals, as to the independence and impartiality of the judge concerned, from being considered to be an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 March 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-139/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation of energy products used by energy-intensive businesses - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 17(1)(b) and (4) - Businesses covered by the EU Emissions Trading System - Exemption from excise duty)

(2022/C 207/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: initially, M. Siekierzyńska and A. Armenia, and, subsequently, A. Armenia, acting as Agents)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Lombard Pénzügyi és Lízing Zrt. v PN

(Case C-472/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Loan contracts - Loan denominated in a foreign currency and repayable in the national currency - Contractual term placing the foreign exchange risk on the consumer - Unfairness of a term relating to the main subject matter of the contract - Effects - Invalidity of the contract - Serious damage to the consumer - Effectiveness of Directive 93/13 - Non-binding opinion of the supreme court - Possibility of restoring the parties to the situation they would have been in if that contract had not been concluded)

(2022/C 207/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lombard Pénzügyi és Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: PN

Operative part

1.

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the effectiveness of its provisions cannot, in the absence of any default rule under national law governing such a situation, be ensured only by a non-binding opinion of the supreme court of the Member State concerned indicating to the lower courts the approach to be taken in order to declare a contract valid or effective as between the parties where that contract cannot continue in existence because of the unfairness of a term relating to its main subject matter.

2.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the competent national court from deciding to restore the parties to a loan contract to the situation they would have been in if that contract had not been concluded on the ground that a term of that contract relating to its main subject matter must be declared unfair under that directive, it being understood that, if that restoration proves to be impossible, it is for that court to ensure that the consumer is ultimately in the situation he or she would have been in if the term found to be unfair had never existed.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-687/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and management of environmental noise - Agglomerations, major roads and major railways - Article 7(2) - Strategic noise maps - Article 8(2) - Action plans - Article 10(2) - Annex VI - Information provided by the strategic noise maps - Summaries of action plans - Failure to communicate to the European Commission within the periods prescribed)

(2022/C 207/05)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Portugal (represented by: M. Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa, H. Almeida, J. Reis Silva and L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Declares that the Portuguese Republic, first, in failing to draw up strategic noise maps for the major roads PT_a_rd00410, PT_a_rd00458, PT_a_rd00460, PT_a_rd00462 and PT_a_rd00633 or action plans for the agglomerations of Amador and Porto and for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to the present judgment, and, second, in failing to communicate to the European Commission the information provided by those maps or the summaries of those action plans, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 7(2), Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI to that directive;

2.	Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bremen — Germany) — DM v CTS Eventim AG & Co. KGaA

(Case C-96/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Right of withdrawal for distance and off-premises contracts - Exceptions to the right of withdrawal - Article 16(l) - Provision of services related to leisure activities - Contract providing for a specific date or period of performance - Provision of ticket agency services - Intermediary acting in its name but on behalf of the organiser of a leisure activity - Risk associated with the exercise of the right of withdrawal)

(2022/C 207/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DM

Defendant: CTS Eventim AG & Co. KGaA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the right of withdrawal provided for in that provision may be relied on against a consumer who has concluded, with an intermediary acting in its name, but on behalf of the organiser of a leisure activity, a distance contract for acquiring a right of access to that activity, provided that, first, the termination of the obligation to perform that contract vis-à-vis the consumer by means of withdrawal, in accordance with Article 12(a) of that directive, would place the risk linked to the setting aside of the capacity thus released on the organiser of the activity concerned and, second, the leisure activity to which that right gives access is scheduled to take place on a specific date or within a specific period.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit — Bulgaria) — LB v Smetna palata na Republika Bulgaria

(Case C-195/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Applicability to a purely internal situation - Article 58(1) and (4) - Selection criteria - Technical and professional ability of the tenderers - Protection of the financial interests of the European Union - Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 8(3) - Control measures - Possibility for national authorities protecting the financial interests of the European Union to assess differently a public procurement procedure)

(2022/C 207/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Lukovit

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LB

Defendant: Smetna palata na Republika Bulgaria

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 58(1) and (4) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2365 of 18 December 2017, must be interpreted as not precluding, in a public procurement procedure, a contracting authority from being able to impose, under the selection criteria relating to the technical and professional abilities of the economic operators, stricter requirements than the minimum requirements set by the national legislation, provided that such requirements are appropriate to ensure that a candidate or tenderer has the technical and professional abilities to perform the contract to be awarded, that they are related to the subject matter of the contract and that they are proportionate to it.

2.

Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, read in conjunction with Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013, laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the principle of proportionality, it does not preclude national authorities protecting the financial interests of the European Union from assessing the same facts in a public procurement procedure differently.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — IA v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

(Case C-231/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Dublin system - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Article 29(2) - Transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection - Six-month time limit for transfer - Possibility of extending that time limit up to a maximum of one year in the event of imprisonment - Definition of ‘imprisonment’ - Court-authorised non-voluntary committal of the asylum seeker to a hospital psychiatric department)

(2022/C 207/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IA

Defendant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘imprisonment’ referred to in that provision is not applicable to the non-voluntary committal of an asylum seeker to a hospital psychiatric department, which has been authorised by a judicial decision, on the ground that that person, due to a mental illness, is a serious danger to him- or herself or to society.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — EL, CP v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-287/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Strike by cabin crew and pilots - Circumstances that are ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to the operating air carrier’s activity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 12 and 28 - Articles 12 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - No infringement of the workers’ freedom of assembly and association and the air carrier’s right of negotiation)

(2022/C 207/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EL, CP

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the order

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that strike action which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the cabin crew and pilots of an operating air carrier and which is intended to assert the demands of those workers does not come within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, any prior negotiations with the workers’ representatives being irrelevant in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio de Stato — Italy) — Comune di Venezia v Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

(Case C-467/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Approximation of laws - Electronic communications networks and services - Restrictions on the installation of mobile phone base transceiver stations established by local authorities - Insufficient details concerning the reasons why an answer to the question referred is necessary for the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 207/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio de Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Venezia

Defendant: Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

Intervener: Regione Veneto

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), by decision of 22 July 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — FU v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des Demandeurs d’Asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-505/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Asylum policy - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) - Article 27 - Remedies against a transfer decision - Article 27 - Remedies against a transfer decision - No link between the interpretation of EU law that is sought and the actual facts of the main action or its purpose - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 207/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FU

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the tribunal du travail de Liège, division d’Arlon (Labour Court, Liège, Arlon Division, Belgium), by decision of 17 August 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Passengers friend GmbH v British Airways plc

(Case C-89/22) (1)

(Air transport - Compensation of air passengers in the event of long delay of flights - Connecting flight consisting of two legs - Significant delay to final destination on the second leg operated by a non-European airline - Compensation claim against the European airline that operated the first leg)

(2022/C 207/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Passengers friend GmbH

Defendant: British Airways plc

Operative part of the order

Case C-89/22 is removed from the Register of the Court.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 10 February 2022

Appeal brought on 12 May 2021 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 March 2021 in Case T-723/18, Barata v Parliament

(Case C-305/21 P)

(2022/C 207/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: João Miguel Barata (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, avocats, V. Villante, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 31 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal be dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr João Miguel Barata should bear his own costs.

Appeal brought on 17 December 2021 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-342/20, Indo European Foods v EUIPO

(Case C-801/21 P)

(2022/C 207/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: Indo European Foods Ltd, Hamid Ahmad Chakari

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside in whole the judgment under appeal in Case T-342/20;

—	declare that there is no need to adjudicate on the action brought before the General Court against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 (Case R 1079-4), and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Appellant EUIPO puts forward a single plea in law, namely infringement of the requirement of a continuing interest in bringing proceedings as recognized by settled case law, which raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of Union law.

—

First error of law, alleging that the General Court infringed the fundamental and autonomous prerequisite for any legal proceedings — as recognized by settled case law — of a continuing interest in bringing proceedings, refusing to consider matters which came into existence after the contested decision on the mere fact that such matters could not call into question the legality of the contested decision. Such interpretation not only conflates this preliminary procedural requirement and the subsequent review of the legality on the merits. It also deprives the continuing interest in bringing proceedings of its own and independent function.

—

Second error of law, alleging that, consequently, the General Court failed to assess the Applicant at first instance’s continuing interest in bringing proceedings. By focusing on the review of legality, the General Court left the question of this mandatory preliminary requirement unanswered: what advantages could the Applicant at first instance derive from the annulment of the contested decision?

—

Third error of law, alleging that the General Court failed to conclude that the Applicant at first instance had not complied with its duty to show its continued interest in bringing proceedings as from the end of the transition period. Given that the mark applied for would be registered only after the end of the transition period, that is, at a point in time when the marks in conflict will not fulfil (and never have fulfilled) their essential function simultaneously (1), EUIPO argues that no conflict ratione temporis and ratione loci could possibly arise. It follows that the Applicant at first instance could not derive any advantage from the procedure and, therefore, does not show a continuing interest in bringing proceedings.

—

Fourth error of law, alleging that the General Court, in consequence of those errors, breached Article 50(3) TEU, Articles 126 and 127 Withdrawal Agreement (2) and Article 72(6) Regulation 2017/1001, which are expressions of the fundamental principle of territoriality, imposing upon EUIPO an obligation to disregard the legal consequences of the end of the transition period on the present case.

—

The present appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of Union law. The judgment under appeal endorses a narrow interpretation of the scope of the horizontal requirement of a continuing interest in bringing proceedings. The said requirement is inspired by the general theory of procedural law common to the Member States, and the interpretation provided by the Union Judge is likely to significantly influence the way it is applied by national courts. The present appeal also raises an important issue of procedural nature — by no means limited to the realm of IP law -, namely the consequences to be drawn from the rule that the author of the annulled act must have reference to the date on which it had adopted it with a view to adopting the replacement act. The issue of the disappearance of the earlier right pendente lite has given rise to contradictory judgments of the General Court, yet the Court of Justice only had a brief opportunity, by way of reasoned order, to address in passing this issue. The present appeal also raises the general issue of the consequences, upon the EU legal order, of the UK’s effective withdrawal from the EU.

---

(1)  Article 11, 51(1), 66(1) and 71(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017, L 154, p. 1).

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

Appeal brought on 10 January 2022 by Sanford LP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-443/20, Sanford v EUIPO — Avery Zweckform (Labels)

(Case C-19/22 P)

(2022/C 207/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sanford LP (represented by: J. Zecher, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Avery Zweckform GmbH

By order of 6 April 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Sanford LP should bear its own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 28 January 2022 — YQ v Ředitelství silnic a dálnic ČR

(Case C-57/22)

(2022/C 207/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: YQ

Defendant: Ředitelství silnic a dálnic ČR

Question referred

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as precluding national case-law by virtue of which a worker who was unlawfully dismissed then reinstated in his or her employment, in accordance with national law, following the annulment of the dismissal by a decision of a court, is not entitled to paid annual leave for the period between the date of the dismissal and that of the reinstatement in his or her employment on the ground that, during that period, that worker did not actually carry out work for the employer, also in cases when, according to national legislation, the worker who has been unlawfully dismissed and who has without undue delay informed his or her employer in writing that he or she insists on being employed, is entitled to wage or salary compensation in the amount of average earnings from the date when he or she informed the employer that he or she insists on the continuation of his or her employment until such time as the employer allows him or her to carry on in his or her work or his or her employment relationship is validly terminated?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 2 February 2022 — Infraestruturas de Portugal, S.A., Futrifer Indústrias Ferroviárias, S.A. v Toscca Equipamentos de Madeira, Lda.

(Case C-66/22)

(2022/C 207/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Infraestruturas de Portugal, S.A., Futrifer Indústrias Ferroviárias, S.A.

Defendant: Toscca Equipamentos de Madeira, Lda.

Questions referred

1.	Does the ground for exclusion provided for in Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) constitute a matter reserved for decision by the contracting authority?

2.

May the national legislature fully replace the decision that should be taken by the contracting authority under Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU with a generic decision (with the effects of a decision) from its national competition authority to impose an ancillary penalty consisting of prohibition from participating in public procurement procedures for a certain period, adopted in the context of the imposition of a fine for infringement of competition rules?

3.

Should the contracting authority’s decision concerning the ‘reliability’ of the economic operator in view of its compliance (or non-compliance) with the rules of competition law, beyond the scope of the specific tendering procedure, be interpreted as requiring an assessment based on the relative suitability of that economic operator, which constitutes a concrete expression of the right to good administration under Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

4.

May the solution adopted in Portuguese law under Article 55(1)(f) of the CCP, (2) whereby the exclusion of an economic operator from a tendering procedure on grounds of infringement of competition rules unrelated to that specific procurement procedure is subject to a decision from the competition authority in the context of an application of an ancillary penalty consisting of a prohibition from tendering, a procedure in which it is the competition authority itself that assesses the relevance of the corrective measures taken, be regarded as consistent with EU law, specifically, Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU?

5.

Furthermore, may the solution adopted under Portuguese law in Article 70(2)(g) of the CCP, which limits the possibility of excluding a tender due to significant evidence of acts, agreements, practices or information that are liable to distort competition rules in the specific procurement procedure in which such practices are detected, be regarded as consistent with EU law, and in particular with Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2)  Código dos Contratos Públicos (Public Procurement Code).

Appeal brought on 8 February 2022 by QB against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-71/21, QB v Commission

(Case C-88/22 P)

(2022/C 207/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: QB (represented by: R. Wardyn, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under the appeal, in whole; and, therefore — annul the decisions of the European Commission of 6 th April 2020 and 3rd November 2020, or, failing that, — refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, and

—	order the European Commission to pay its own costs of the process as well as those of the Applicant in both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the Appellant relies on one plea in law alleging violation of article 4 (1) of Annex VII of Staff Regulations and claims that the General Court:

—	erred in determining the main occupation of the Appellant as it disregarded the work done by the Appellant for the State of Poland and his status of a judge;

—	erred in defining the conditions of ‘work done for another state’;

—	disregarded and failed to take account of the work done by the Appellant for the State of Poland and his status of a judge while examining the exception of ‘work done for another state’.

Appeal brought on 10 February 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-546/20, Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission

(Case C-101/22 P)

(2022/C 207/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. André, M. Ilkova, O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sopra Steria Benelux, Unisys Belgium

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside paragraphs 52 to 57, 60, 61, 66, 68 and 69 of the judgment under appeal;

—	dismiss the action for annulment;

—	order Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium to pay the costs of the present proceedings before the Court of Justice and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, the Commission raises three grounds of appeal.

The first ground alleges that the General Court erred in law by qualifying the letter of the applicants at first instance of 10 July 2020 as an ‘express request’ for the reasons which led the contracting authority not to consider the successful tender as appearing to be abnormally low.

The second ground alleges a distortion of the facts, by incorrectly assessing the content of the Commission’s reply of 20 July 2020.

The third ground alleges failure to have regard to the scope of the contracting authority’s obligation to state reasons under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 170(3) of the Financial Regulation where the contracting authority considers that the successful tender does not appear to be abnormally low.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — P.M. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-105/22)

(2022/C 207/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: P.M.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Question referred

Must Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union …, the principle that excise duty is a single-stage tax on actual consumption, and the principle of proportionality be interpreted as precluding the application of a provision of national law such as Article 107(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 6 grudnia 2008 r. o podatku akcyzowym (Law of 6 December 2008 on Excise Duty) … in so far as it precludes the reimbursement to a taxable person of excise duty upon the export of a registered passenger car, calculated in proportion to the period during which that car was used in the national territory?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 15 February 2022 — Xella Magyarország Építőanyagipari Kft. v Innovációs és Technológiai Miniszter

(Case C-106/22)

(2022/C 207/21)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Xella Magyarország Építőanyagipari Kft.

Defendant: Innovációs és Technológiai Miniszter

Questions referred

1.

Having regard to recitals 4 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2019/452 (1) establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union and to Article 4(2) TEU, must Article 65(1)(b) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it permits the laying down of rules such as those in Paragraph 85 of veszélyhelyzet megszűnésével összefüggő átmeneti szabályokról és a járványügyi készültségről szóló 2020. évi LVIII. törvény (Law LVIII of 2020 on transitional provisions relating to the end of the state of emergency and to the pandemic crisis), and in particular those in Paragraph 276(1) and (2)(a) and Paragraph 283(1)(b) of that law?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the mere fact that the Commission has conducted a merger control procedure, exercised its powers and authorised a concentration affecting the chain of ownership of a foreign indirect investor preclude the exercise of the decision-making power under the applicable law of the Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 79I, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 February 2022 — X BV, Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

(Case C-107/22)

(2022/C 207/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X BV, Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

Questions referred

1.

Must general interpretative rule 2(a) (1) be interpreted as applying to the separate components of a satellite receiver which are intended, after their release for free circulation, to be assembled into a complete satellite receiver, which components are transported in a single container and are declared for release for free circulation on the same day, at the same customs post, by the same declarant in its own name and on its own behalf, under two separate declarations, and which are owned by two associated undertakings at the time of being put into free circulation?

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must general interpretative rule 2(a) then be interpreted as also applying to the separate components of a satellite receiver which are declared for release for free circulation by the same declarant in its own name and on its own behalf, on the same day and at the same customs post as that at which the other components for that satellite receiver are placed under the external Community transit procedure, when the components, at the time when the declarations are made, are the property of two associated undertakings and all the components together are intended, after being put into free circulation, to be assembled into a complete satellite receiver?

---

(1)  Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängige Schiedskommission Wien (Austria) lodged on 17 February 2022 — E.N.

(Case C-115/22)

(2022/C 207/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängige Schiedskommission Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.N.

Interested parties: Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur Austria GmbH (NADA), Österreichischer Leichtathletikverband (ÖLV), Word Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

Questions referred

1.

Does the information that a certain person has committed a specific doping violation, as a result of which that person has been banned from taking part in (national and international) competitions, constitute ‘data concerning health’ within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (‘the General Data Protection Regulation’)?

2.

Does the General Data Protection Regulation — particularly in the light of the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) thereof — preclude a national provision that provides for the disclosure of the name of the persons concerned by the decision of the Independent Arbitration Committee, the duration of the ban and the reasons for it, without it being possible to infer the health data of the person concerned? Is it relevant that disclosure of that information to the general public can only be omitted under the national provision if the person concerned is a recreational athlete, a minor or a person who has contributed significantly to the detection of potential anti-doping violations by disclosing information or other indications?

3.

Does the General Data Protection Regulation — particularly in the light of the principles in Article 5(1)(a) and (c) thereof — in any case prior to the disclosure, require a balancing of interests between the personal interests of the person concerned that will be affected by the disclosure, on the one hand, and the interest of the general public in being informed of the anti-doping violation committed by an athlete, on the other?

4.

Does the disclosure of the information that a certain person has committed a specific doping violation, as a result of which that person has been banned from taking part in (national and international) competitions, constitute the processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences within the meaning of Article 10 of the General Data Protection Regulation?

5.	If Question IV is answered in the affirmative: Is the Independent Arbitration Committee established under Paragraph 8 of the 2021 ADBG an official authority within the meaning of Article 10 of the General Data Protection Regulation?

---

(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).

Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Dyson Ltd, Dyson Technology Ltd, Dyson Operations Pte Ltd, Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bhd, Dyson Spain, SL, Dyson Austria GmbH, Dyson sp. z o.o., Dyson Ireland Ltd, Dyson GmbH, Dyson, Dyson Srl, Dyson Sweden AB, Dyson Denmark ApS, Dyson Finland Oy, Dyson BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-127/19, Dyson and Others v Commission

(Case C-122/22 P)

(2022/C 207/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Dyson Ltd, Dyson Technology Ltd, Dyson Operations Pte Ltd, Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bhd, Dyson Spain, SL, Dyson Austria GmbH, Dyson sp. z o.o., Dyson Ireland Ltd, Dyson GmbH, Dyson, Dyson Srl, Dyson Sweden AB, Dyson Denmark ApS, Dyson Finland Oy, Dyson BV (represented by: E. Batchelor, T. Selwyn Sharpe and M. Healy, solicitors and avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	Annul the Contested Judgment in its entirety;

—	Rule that the Commission committed a sufficiently serious breach of EU law and remit the damages application back to the General Court; and

—	Order the Commission to pay its own costs and Dyson’s costs in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court mischaracterised Dyson’s pleas and failed to state its reasoning. Dyson’s plea was solely directed to the Commission’s grave and manifest error in choosing the one test method that was clearly outside its discretion, namely of testing with no dust at all. The General Court did not address this plea;

Second, the General Court erred in applying the case law on sufficiently serious breach, in not according determinative weight to its conclusion that the Commission breached a non-discretionary requirement under Art. 10 Parent Directive;

Third, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach and legally mischaracterized the evidence in concluding that the ‘during use’ specification in the Parent Directive gave rise to interpretational difficulties;

Fourth, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach in concluding that the ‘during use’ specification in the Parent Directive gave rise to regulatory complexity;

Fifth, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach in concluding there was no grave and manifest error in connection with the Commission’s breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment;

Sixth, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach in concluding there was no grave and manifest error in connection with the Commission’s breach of the fundamental principles of sound administration and/or to act diligently;

Seventh, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach in concluding there was no grave and manifest error in connection with the Commission’s breach of the fundamental principle of the right to pursue a trade or business.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2022 — BM, NP v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

(Case C-132/22)

(2022/C 207/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BM, NP

Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

Question referred

Must Article 45(1) and (2) TFEU and Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1) be interpreted as precluding a rule, such as that laid down in Article 1(655) of Law No 205/2017, according to which, in order to take part in the procedure for inclusion on the lists compiled for the award of permanent and temporary teaching contracts in Italian AFAM institutions, professional experience gained by candidates at those national institutions alone is taken into account, and not experience gained at peer institutions in other European countries, given that the procedure in question is specifically intended to counter the phenomenon of precarious employment in Italy? If the Court of Justice does not hold the Italian legislation to be contrary, in abstract terms, to the European regulatory framework, can the measures envisaged by that legislation be regarded as proportionate, in concrete terms, in view of the abovementioned public-interest objective?

---

(1)  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).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 1 March 2022 — Association Avocats pour la défense des droits des étrangers (ADDE) and Others v Ministre de l’Intérieur

(Case C-143/22)

(2022/C 207/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association Avocats pour la défense des droits des étrangers (ADDE), Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE), Association de recherche, de communication et d’action pour l’accès aux traitements (ARCAT), Comité inter-mouvements auprès des évacués (CIMADE), Fédération des associations de solidarité avec tou-te-s les immigré-e-s (FASTI), Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré.e.s (GISTI), Ligue des droits de l’homme (LDH), Le Paria, Syndicat des avocats de France (SAF), SOS — Hépatites Fédération

Defendant: Ministre de l’Intérieur

Question referred

In the event of the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders, under the conditions laid down in Chapter II of Title III of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, (1) can foreign nationals arriving directly from the territory of a State party to the Schengen Convention signed on 19 June 1990 be refused entry, when entry checks are carried out at that border, on the basis of Article 14 of that regulation, without Directive 2008/115/EC (2) being applicable?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1).

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Président du tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 2 March 2022 — OP v Commune d’Ans

(Case C-148/22)

(2022/C 207/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Président du tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OP

Defendant: Commune d’Ans

Questions referred

1.

Can Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as permitting a public administration to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment and thus to prohibit all members of staff from wearing symbols of conviction, whether or not they are in direct contact with the public?

2.

Can Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted as permitting a public administration to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment and thus to prohibit all members of staff from wearing symbols of conviction, whether or not they are in direct contact with the public, even if that neutral prohibition appears mostly to affect women, and may thus constitute disguised discrimination on grounds of gender?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 15 March 2022 — Kopiosto r.y. v Telia Finland Oyj

(Case C-201/22)

(2022/C 207/28)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Kopiosto r.y.

Respondent: Telia Finland Oyj

Questions referred

1.

With regard to contractual licensing organisations which collectively manage intellectual property rights, does the legal standing to defend those rights, which is conferred by Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48, (1) refer only to the general capacity to be a party to legal proceedings, or does it require a right expressly recognised by national law to bring legal proceedings in one’s own name for the purposes of defending the rights in question?

2.

In an interpretation based on Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48, must the term ‘direct interest in the defence of the copyright of the rightholders whom it represents’ be interpreted uniformly in all Member States as regards the right of a collective representation body within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Directive 2014/26/EU (2) to bring an action for copyright infringement in its own name where (i) it concerns uses of works in respect of which an organisation is entitled, as a contractual licensing organisation within the meaning of the Tekijänoikeuslaki (Law on copyright), to grant extended collective licences also allowing the licensee to use works by authors in that sector who have not authorised the organisation to manage their rights; (ii) it concerns uses of works in respect of which the authors have authorised the organisation to manage their rights by contract or by way of a mandate, without the copyrights having been assigned to the organisation?

3.

If the organisation, in its capacity as a contractual licensing organisation, is presumed to have a direct interest and legal standing to bring an action in its own name: in assessing standing to bring proceedings in the light of, where applicable, Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, what significance must be given to the fact that the organisation, as a contractual licensing organisation, also represents authors who have not authorised it to manage their rights, and that the organisation’s right to bring an action to defend the rights of such authors is not provided for by law?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

(2)  Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72).

Action brought on 29 March 2022 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-224/22)

(2022/C 207/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) 2022/110 (1) of 27 January 2022 fixing for 2022 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas with regard to the establishment of (i) the maximum allowable fishing effort for longliners of European hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullus barbatus) in Alboran Sea, Balearic Islands, Northern Spain and Gulf of Lion (geographical sub-areas (‘GSAs’) 1-2-5-6-7) set out in Annex III (c); and (ii) the maximum catch limits for red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) in Alboran Sea, Balearic Islands, Northern Spain and Gulf of Lion (GSAs 1-2-5-6-7) set out in Annex III (e);

—	order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea:

The setting of the maximum allowable fishing effort for longliners of European hake and red mullet in GSAs 1-2-5-6-7:

(1)	is not reasoned in accordance with the requirements of Article 7(5) of Regulation 2019/1022 (2) in so far as the scientific advice from which significant catches of a particular stock are derived has not been determined;

(2)

in the alternative, (i) is contrary to Article 7(5) of Regulation 2019/1022 in so far as the scientific advice examined by the Kingdom of Spain shows no significant catches of a particular stock and (ii) is disproportionate, in that it is manifestly inappropriate for the purposes of attaining the objective of Regulation 2019/1022 since it does not comply with the requirement of scientific advice or the coherent implementation of the common fisheries policy (CFP) in all three of its environmental, economic and social dimensions; and it is not necessary for there to be other alternative measures implemented in order to achieve that objective (closures and increase in the selectivity of trawl gear).

Second plea:

The setting of a specific maximum catch limit for red shrimp in GSAs 1-2-5-6-7;

(1)	is not reasoned in accordance with the requirements of Article 7(3)(b) of Regulation 2019/1022 in so far as the scientific advice on the need to adopt this conservation measure has not been determined;

(2)

in the alternative, (i) is contrary to Article 7(3)(b) of Regulation 2019/1022 in so far as recourse to the measure was not provided for in that Regulation and the scientific advice examined by the Kingdom of Spain shows no significant need to adopt that conservation measure: and (ii) is disproportionate, in that it is manifestly inappropriate for the purposes of attaining the objective of Regulation 2019/1022, since it does not comply with the requirement of scientific advice and overlaps with other conservation measures; and it is not necessary for there to be other alternative measures implemented in order to achieve that objective (closures, minimum sizes and increase in the selectivity of trawl gear).

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2022/110 of 27 January 2022 fixing for 2022 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. (OJ 2022 L 21, p. 165).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 508/2014. (OJ 2019 L 172, p. 1).

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Martinair Holland v Commission

(Case T-323/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of air freight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 207/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3.	Orders Martinair Holland NV to bear its own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-324/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Equality of arms - Article 266 TFEU - State coercion - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Duration of participation in the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Substantially limited involvement - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SAS Cargo Group A/S (Kastrup, Denmark), Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden (Stockholm, Sweden), SAS AB (Stockholm) (represented by: B. Creve, M. Kofmann, J. Killick and G. Forwood, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking, in essence, annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on them.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Article 1(1)(o), (p) and (q), (2)(o) and (p), (3)(o) and (p), and (4)(o), (p) and (q) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it finds that SAS AB, SAS Cargo Group A/S and Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden participated in the component of the single and continuous infringement relating to the refusal to pay commission on surcharges;

2.

Annuls Article 1(2)(o) and (p) in so far as it finds an infringement of Article 101 TFEU on routes from Thailand to the European Union between 20 July 2005 and 14 February 2006 as regards the element relating to the FSC, and Article 1(3)(o) and (p), in so far as it finds an infringement of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement on routes from Thailand to the European Economic Area between 20 July 2005 and 14 February 2006 as regards the element relating to the FSC;

3.	Annuls Article 3(n) to (r);

4.

The amount of the fine imposed on Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden is set at EUR 7 030 618, the fine imposed on SAS Cargo Group and Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden jointly and severally must be set at EUR 5 937 909, the fine imposed on SAS Cargo Group, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden and SAS jointly and severally must be set at EUR 6 314 572, the fine imposed on SAS Cargo Group and SAS jointly and severally must be set at EUR 29 045 427 and the fine imposed on SAS Cargo Group must be set at EUR 21 687 090;

5.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

6.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and three quarters of the costs of SAS Cargo Group, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden and SAS;

7.	Orders SAS Cargo Group, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden and SAS to bear one quarter of their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission

(Case T-325/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of air freight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Extenuating circumstances - Anticompetitive conduct encouraged by the national authorities - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for the partial annulment of the decision and a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3.	Orders Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV to bear its own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Air Canada v Commission

(Case T-326/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Failure to send a new statement of objections - Single and continuous infringement - Withdrawal of the leniency application - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Air Canada (Saint-Laurent, Quebec, Canada) (represented by: T. Soames and I.-Z. Prodromou-Stamoudi, lawyers, and by J. Joshua, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and H. Leupold, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz QC)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, in essence, annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for cancellation of the fine imposed on the applicant or a reduction in the amount of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Article 1(1)(a), (2)(a), (3)(a) and (4)(a) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it finds that Air Canada participated in the element of the single and continuous infringement relating to the refusal to pay commission on surcharges;

2.	Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Air Canada in Article 3(a) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final at EUR 17 952 000;

3.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Air Canada;

5.	Orders Air Canada to bear two thirds of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission

(Case T-334/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Failure to send a new statement of objections - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Duration of participation in the infringement - Additional amount - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of the anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Follow-my-leader role - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cargolux Airlines International SA (Sandweiler, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by E. MacKenzie, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for cancellation of the fine imposed on the applicant or a reduction in the amount of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3.	Orders Cargolux Airlines International SA to bear its own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Air France-KLM v Commission

(Case T-337/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Conditions for granting immunity - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Duration of participation in the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of the anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Air France-KLM (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann, A. de La Cotardière and A.-E. Herrada, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for partial annulment of that decision and a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3.	Orders Air France-KLM to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Air France v Commission

(Case T-338/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Conditions for granting immunity - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Duration of the participation in the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of the anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Air France (Tremblay-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and A. de La Cotardière, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for partial annulment of that decision and a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3.	Orders Société Air France to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Japan Airlines v Commission

(Case T-340/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Article 266 TFEU - Limitation period - Rights of the defence - Non-discrimination - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Additional amount - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of the anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Substantially limited involvement - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Japan Airlines Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, G. Koleva and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Article 1(1)(h) and (4)(h) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

2.	Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Japan Airlines Co. Ltd in Article 3(h) of that decision at EUR 28 875 000;

3.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4.	Orders Japan Airlines to bear one third of its own costs;

5.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Japan Airlines.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — British Airways v Commission

(Case T-341/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of air freight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Obligation to state reasons - Article 266 TFEU - State coercion - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Duration of participation in the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Airways plc (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Turner, R. O’Donoghue QC, and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and A. Bates, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for cancellation of the fine imposed on the applicant or for a reduction in the amount thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Article 1(1)(e), (2)(e) and (3)(e) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it finds that British Airways plc participated in the component of the single and continuous infringement relating to the refusal to pay commission on surcharges;

2.	Annuls Article 1(4)(e) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final;

3.	Sets the amount of the fine imposed on British Airways under Article 3(e) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final at EUR 84 456 000;

4.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by British Airways;

6.	Orders British Airways to bear two thirds of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission

(Case T-342/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of air freight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Obligation to state reasons - Effect on trade between Member States - State coercion - Single and continuous infringement)

(2022/C 207/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany), Lufthansa Cargo AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Swiss International Air Lines AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3.	Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG to bear their own costs and to pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

(Case T-343/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Limitation period - State constraint - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of anticompetitive behaviour by public authorities - Substantially reduced participation - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: R. Kreisberger, QC, N. Grubeck, Barrister, M. Rees, Solicitor, and E. Estellon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, QC)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Article 1(1)(g) and (4)(g) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

2.	Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd in Article 3(g) of that decision at EUR 47 040 000;

3.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4.	Orders Cathay Pacific Airways to bear one third of its own costs;

5.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Cathay Pacific Airways.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission

(Case T-344/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Limitation period - Ne bis in idem principle - Principle of non-discrimination - Rights of the defence - State constraint - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Substantially limited participation - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Latam Airlines Group SA (Santiago, Chile), Lan Cargo SA (Santiago) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss and W. Sparks, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Koleva, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz QC)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicants and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Article 1(1)(i) and (j),(3)(i) and (j), and (4)(i) and (j) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

2.

Annuls Article 1(2)(i) and (j) of that decision in so far as it finds that Latam Airlines Group SA and Lan Cargo SA participated, first, in the elements of the single and continuous infringement relating to the security surcharge and the refusal to pay commission and, second, in the element of the single and continuous infringement relating to the fuel surcharge before 22 July 2005;

3.	Annuls Article 3(i) of that decision;

4.	Sets the fine imposed jointly and severally on Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo at EUR 2 244 000;

5.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

6.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission

(Case T-350/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Ne bis in idem principle - State coercion - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Singapore Airlines Ltd (Singapore, Singapore), Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd (Singapore) (represented by: J. Kallaugher, J.P. Poitras, Solicitors, and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, and C. Brown, Barrister)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it relates to the applicants, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3.	Orders Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo to bear their own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Necci v Commission

(Case T-129/19 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Social security - JSIS - Rejection of the application for membership following a transfer of pension rights - Condition relating to a period of employment of more than three years - Article 95 of the CEOS - Article 34(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 45 TFEU)

(2022/C 207/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Claudio Necci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 18 April 2018 by which it impliedly rejected his application for membership of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the Institutions of the European Communities (JSIS) submitted on 18 December 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by Mr Claudio Necci relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice, in Case C-202/20 P;

3.	Orders Mr Necci to pay the costs relating to the appeal proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-129/19 RENV, and relating to the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-129/19;

4.	Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs relating to Case T-129/19 and to the present proceedings on referral.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-291/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 207/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, Solicitor, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Haas, P. Mahnič, S. Van Overmeire and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

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

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-292/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 207/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, Solicitor, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Haas, P. Mahnič, S. Van Overmeire and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

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

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — KF v EIB

(Case T-299/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Complaint of psychological harassment - Administrative investigation - Decision rejecting the complaint - Error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Liability)

(2022/C 207/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: K. Carr and J. Pawlowicz, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the EIB’s decision of 27 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of harassment and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 27 January 2020;

2.	Orders the EIB to pay KF the amount of EUR 3 000;

3.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4.	Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by KF.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Perry Street Software v EUIPO — Toolstream (SCRUFFS)

(Case T-720/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark SCRUFFS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 207/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perry Street Software, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and T. Dolde, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Toolstream Ltd (Yeovil, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Hourigan, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 (Case R 550/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Perry Street Software and Toolstream.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Perry Street Software, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO COUTURE)

(Case T-30/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SO COUTURE - EU word mark SO …? - Relative grounds 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))

(2022/C 207/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Clichy, France) (represented by: M. Treis and E. M. Strobel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J. P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2020 (Case R 158/2016 5), relating to opposition proceedings between Debonair Trading Internacional and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — SFD v EUIPO — Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION)

(Case T-35/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION - Earlier EU word marks ALLMAX NUTRITION - 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))

(2022/C 207/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SFD S.A. (Opole, Poland) (represented by: T. Grucelski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Allmax Nutrition Inc. (North York, Ontario, Canada)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 (Case R 511/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Allmax Nutrition and SFD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders SFD S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — PO v Commission

(Case T-36/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 1d(1) and (4) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable accommodation - Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability - Directive 2000/78/EC - Obligation to state reasons - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Responsibility - Material and non-material damage)

(2022/C 207/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 29 April 2020, taken following a review, not to include his name on the reserve list for Open Competition EPSO/AD/338/17 as well as the decision of the appointing authority of 14 October 2020 rejecting his complaint and, second, compensation for the harm he allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Kalita and Haas v EUIPO — Kitzbühel Tourismus (Representation of two animals)

(Case T-206/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two animals - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an animal - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 207/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Oliver Kalita (Jochberg, Austria), Christian Haas (Kitzbühel, Austria) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Graul and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Kitzbühel Tourismus, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Kitzbühel) (represented by: M. Horak, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 (Case R 863/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Kitzbühel Tourismus and, on the other, Mr Kalita and Mr Haas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 February 2021 (Case R 863/2021-1);

2.	Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Mr Oliver Kalita and Mr Christian Haas;

3.	Orders Kitzbühel Tourismus, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Mr Kalita and Mr Haas.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Établissement Amra v EUIPO — eXpresio (Shape of a rebound shoe)

(Case T-264/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU three-dimensional mark - Shape of a rebound shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Presence of word elements - Lack of essential non-functional characteristics)

(2022/C 207/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Établissement Amra (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Gómez Calvo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: eXpresio, estudio creativo, SL (La Nucia, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 (Case R 1083/2020-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Établissement Amra and eXpresio, estudio creativo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 March 2021 (Case R 1083/2020-1);

2.	Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Hesse v EUIPO — Wedl & Hofmann (Testa Rossa)

(Case T-451/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Testa Rossa - Earlier EU figurative mark TESTA ROSSA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 207/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tyrol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2021 (Case R 878/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wedl & Hofmann and Mr Hesse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

Order of the General Court of 22 March 2022 — Miquel y Costas & Miquel v EUIPO (Pure Hemp)

(Case T-17/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 207/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miquel y Costas & Miquel, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2020 (Case R 853/2020-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Pure Hemp as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Miquel y Costas & Miquel, SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-232/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Correspondence of the Commission concerning the quantities and delivery times of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccines - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Requests to amend the form of order sought - Lis pendens - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 207/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, K. Herrmann and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the implied decision of 30 April 2021, and, after amendment of the forms of order sought, of the express decision of 13 July 2021, by which the Commission rejected his confirmatory request for access to certain documents.

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to rule on the form of order seeking annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 30 April 2021 rejecting the confirmatory request for access to certain documents.

2.	The action as to the remainder is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

3.	The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those of Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure pertaining to the application and for the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate.

4.	Mr Saure shall bear his own costs and pay those of the Commission pertaining to the request to amend the application.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2022 — UNIS v Commission

(Case T-431/21) (1)

(Application for annulment - Social security - Bodies entrusted with the management of statutory health insurance and old-age insurance schemes - Caisse nationale d’assurance vieillesse - Economic activity - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 207/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union nationale des indépendants solidaires UNIS (Lorient, France) (represented by: F. Ortega, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, H. van Vliet, T. Baumé and A. Boitos, agents)

Re:

By this action, brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, which is a professional organisation established 21 February 2020 under French law, seeks the annulment of a letter of the European Commission of 18 May 2021 declaring that it was not competent to review the questions raised by the applicant in its complaint of 7 April 2021.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	L’Union nationale des indépendants solidaires (UNIS) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

Order of the General Court of 21 March 2022 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO (COMMANDOS)

(Case T-550/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 207/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kalypso Media Group GmbH (Worms, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2021 (Case R 1864/2020-2) relating to an application for registration of the word sign COMMANDOS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

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

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Ecocert India v Commission

(Case T-123/22)

(2022/C 207/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ecocert India Pte Ltd (Gurugram, India) (represented by: Y. Martinet, D. Todorova and J. Sohm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Article 1 in conjunction with point 5 of Annex I, as concerning India, of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2325 of 16 December 2021 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the list of third countries and the list of control authorities and control bodies that have been recognised under Article 33(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 for the purpose of importing organic products into the Union, (1) in so far as that provision removes Ecocert India Private Limited from the recognised control bodies appearing in the list for India, accredited for carrying out controls and issuing certificates of inspection authorising the release for free circulation in the European Union, as organic products, of products imported from India; and

—	order the Commission to pay all the expenses.

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 incompetence of the defendant as to delisting the applicant from the list of recognised Indian control bodies. — In application of Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, (2) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, (3) the defendant is competent to establish a list of recognised third countries, which is set out in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. However, only the competent third country authority can accredit or delist control bodies. By removing the applicant from the list of recognised control bodies, it is argued that the defendant exceeded the limits of its competence and violated Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, combined with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. In addition, the provisions on which the defendant based Regulation (EU) 2021/2325, namely Article 3(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1342 of 27 May 2021, (4) had not entered into force until 1 January 2022.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendant of essential procedural requirements. — By deciding to remove the applicant from the list of Indian control bodies on the basis of the list as published in Annex III to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (list of recognised third countries), the applicant argues that the defendant deprived it of any procedural guarantees, as under this legal basis there is no possibility for individual control bodies to be heard before a negative decision is taken on their behalf.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the facts and verification of the evidence; error of assessment by the defendant as regards the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2021/2325. — First part of the third plea: the defendant, it is argued, failed to take into consideration the fact that the applicant was not aware of the use of ethylene oxide (EtO) as a fumigant to fight salmonella, at the time of the occurring of the event. — Second part of the third plea: the defendant did not draw the right conclusions from the fact that the applicant took all the necessary remedial measures. — Third part of the third plea: the defendant failed, in the applicant’s view, to take into consideration the sanctions adopted by the Indian competent authority APEDA.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the general principles of law of legitimate expectations, proportionality and non-discrimination. — First part of the fourth plea: violation of the principle of proportionality, as the removal of the applicant from the list of certified control bodies was disproportionate to the discovered irregularities and failed to take into account the time lag and appropriate corrective measures. — Second part of the fourth plea: violation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, as the defendant, it is argued, decided in a discriminatory fashion to decertify only certain control bodies, although the same irregularities were committed by other entities, thus creating unfair competition between foreign control bodies. — Third part of the fourth plea: violation of the principle of legitimate expectations, as the repeated inclusion of the applicant on the list of control bodies, since 2006, has created a situation likely to give rise to legitimate expectations which was violated by the defendant; the unclear and unpredictable legal provision served as a basis for the removal of the applicant from the list of Indian control bodies.

---

(1)  OJ L 2021 L 465, p. 8.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ L 2008 L 334, p. 25).

(4)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1342 of 27 May 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council with rules on the information to be sent by third countries and by control authorities and control bodies for the purpose of supervision of their recognition under Article 33(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 for imported organic products and the measures to be taken in the exercise of that supervision (OJ 2021 L 292, p. 20).

Action brought on 23 March 2022 — Hyundai Heavy Industries Holdings v Commission

(Case T-156/22)

(2022/C 207/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hyundai Heavy Industries Holdings Co. Ltd (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: S. Völcker, J. Ruiz Calzado, H. Armengod Suarez, J.-B. Douchy, lawyers, and D. Little, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the Commission Decision of 13 January 2022 in Case M.9343 — Hyundai Heavy Industries Holdings / Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering in its totality (the Decision); and

—	order the Commission to bear its costs and pay the applicant’s costs for the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging errors of law regarding the Commission’s attempt to demonstrate the creation of a dominant position on the basis of a substantive analysis that is disconnected from the legal test that the Decision purports to apply.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and assessment and a failure to provide sufficient reasoning regarding the Commission’s conclusion that the contested transaction would have created a dominant position resulting in a substantial impediment to effective competition in the internal market because of (a) the reliance on market shares as ‘prima facie’ evidence of the creation of a dominant position despite persistently low margins, structural overcapacity and infrequent tenders, (b) the failure to recognize the competitive constraints exercised by competitors and a flawed pivotality assessment, (c) the dismissal of the customers’ obvious buyer power in a market characterized by overcapacity and infrequent, high value tenders, (d) the failure to establish how the contested transaction would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in the internal market, and (e) the incorrect assessment of the range of possible outcomes that would have prevailed absent the contested transaction.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right of defence and the right to good administration due to the Commission’s failure to adopt a Supplementary Statement of Objections to remedy to the lack of clarity on the key aspects of the Statement of Objections and the reliance on evidence not included in the Statement of Objections.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care due to the fact that much of the Statement of Objection’s evidence was outdated by the time the Commission adopted its Decision, and that it failed to investigate carefully and impartially the most critical facts, prejudging the outcome of the contested transaction.

Action brought on 22 March 2022 — Dehaen v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-157/22)

(2022/C 207/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Karolien Dehaen (Schilde, Belgium) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC –European Union trade mark No 2 148 799

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2021 in Case R 972/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 22 March 2022 — Dehaen v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-158/22)

(2022/C 207/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Karolien Dehaen (Schilde, Belgium) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC –European Union trade mark No 9 419 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2021 in Case R 975/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 25 March 2022 — 1906 Collins v EUIPO — Peace United (bâoli BEACH)

(Case T-160/22)

(2022/C 207/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark bâoli BEACH — EU trade mark No 16 552 333

Proceedings before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2022 in Case R 223/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	declare EU trade mark No 16 552 333 bâoli BEACH invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001;

—	declare trade mark No 16 552 333 invalid as of the date of its filing;

—

order Peace United to reimburse the fees and costs incurred by 1906 Collins in connection with the present proceedings, including the costs awarded by the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, in accordance with Article 134(1) and Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

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

—	Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 28 March 2022 — Transformers Manufacturing Company v EUIPO — H&F (TMC TRANSFORMERS)

(Case T-163/22)

(2022/C 207/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Transformers Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark TMC TRANSFORMERS — Application for registration No 17 262 668

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2022 in Case R 1211/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	first of all and principally, acknowledge H&F Srl’s lack of capacity and declare the proceedings at first and second instance before EUIPO inadmissible;

—	alter the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and based on insufficient reasoning;

—	in the alternative, overturn the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and refer the action back to EUIPO;

—	order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs for the three stages of legal proceedings.

Pleas in law

—	Lack of capacity to bring proceedings on the part of H&F Srl, a matter on which EUIPO did not rule and for which it did not provide sufficient reasons;

—	Incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009) in fact and in law;

—	Failure to state sufficient reasons for the contested decision.

Action brought on 28 March 2022 — Transformers Manufacturing Company v EUIPO — H&F (TMC TRANSFORMERS)

(Case T-167/22)

(2022/C 207/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Transformers Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark TMC TRANSFORMERS — Application for registration No 17 264 664

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2022 in Case R 1212/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	first of all and principally, acknowledge H&F Srl’s lack of capacity and declare the proceedings at first and second instance before EUIPO inadmissible;

—	alter the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and based on insufficient reasoning;

—	in the alternative, overturn the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and refer the action back to EUIPO;

—	order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs for the three stages of legal proceedings.

Pleas in law

—	Lack of capacity to bring proceedings on the part of H&F Srl, a matter on which EUIPO did not rule and for which it did not provide sufficient reasons;

—	Incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009) in fact and in law;

—	Failure to state sufficient reasons for the contested decision.

Action brought on 30 March 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-168/22)

(2022/C 207/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 January 2022 in Case R 1612/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	allow the applicant’s appeal;

—	order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

—	The Board of Appeal’s analysis of distinctive character erred substantially;

—	The Board of Appeal erred in failing to find a likelihood of confusion;

—	The Board of Appeal erred in failing to deliver to the applicant a fair trial on all of the issues.

Action brought on 31 March 2022 — Telefónica de España v Commission

(Case T-170/22)

(2022/C 207/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 January 2022 relating to the Call for Tenders DIGIT/A3/PR/2019/RP/010 — Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA);

—	grant any other relief that the Court considers appropriate in the circumstances;

—	and, in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, by penalising the consortium (1) for failing to provide information that was never requested in the tender specifications, in breach of the principle of transparency.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in failing to score the offer (2) in accordance with the tender specifications, in breach of the principles of transparency and legal certainty.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in failing to set out clear, unambiguous award criteria, and failed to provide the information necessary to assess the scoring of the offer, in breach of the principles of transparency and certainty and the rights of defence.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in failing to seek clarifications when possible and useful, in breach of the principles of good administration and procedural fairness.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the procurement procedure was vitiated by a series of breaches of fundamental principles of EU law.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law in failing to impose any measures to safeguard Member States’ rights under Article 346 TFEU not to disclose information contrary to the essential interests of their security, and breached the principle of equal treatment.

---

(1)  The ‘consortium’, as defined in the application, is composed of Telefonica de España, the applicant, plus two other entities.

(2)  By ‘the offer’ is meant the consortium’s tender offer.

Action brought on 31 March 2022 — OR and OS v Commission

(Case T-171/22)

(2022/C 207/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: OR and OS (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of 12 July 2021 by which the [Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of the European Commission (PMO)] rejected the applicants’ request of 18 March 2021, made on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, for payment of the pension rights accumulated by their deceased father under the Pension Scheme of the European Union Institutions (‘the PSEUI’) and of the pension rights acquired prior to his entry into service;

—	annul, in so far as it is considered to supplement the statement of reasons, the decision of 22 December 2021 by which the Appointing Authority rejected the applicants’ complaint of 20 September 2021;

—	order the defendant to return to the applicants the amount of the rights corresponding to the contributions made by the deceased to the PSEUI and the amount of his national pension rights transferred thereto;

—	order the defendant to pay the interest due on the amounts to be returned at the European Central Bank interest rate, increased by two percentage points, from the date of the transfer and the monthly contributions;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment of the European Union. The applicants argue in this regard that their father had acquired, prior to his death, the right to transfer his years of pensionable service acquired under the PSEUI and the years of pensionable service acquired under his national pension rights, and emphasise that this right is not subject to any limitation period. The applicants add that, since their father had not completed, prior to his death, the ten years of actual service that would have enabled him to benefit from the payment of a retirement pension under the PSEUI, the sums contributed constitute unjust enrichment of the European Union.

Action brought on 31 March 2022 — Gönenç v EUIPO — Solar (termorad ‘ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR’)

(Case T-172/22)

(2022/C 207/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solar A/S (Vejen, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark termorad ‘ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR’ — Application for registration No 18 027 358

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2022 in Case R 770/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision so that the European Union trade mark No 18 027 358 is granted in its entirety;

—	order the intervener and/or the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in connection with this appeal and all procedural costs generated by EUIPO decisions.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 4 April 2022 — Novartis v EUIPO — AstraZeneca (BREZTREV)

(Case T-174/22)

(2022/C 207/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AstraZeneca AB (Södertälje, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BREZTREV — Application for registration No 18 088 373

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2022 in Case R 738/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 4 April 2022 — Novartis v EUIPO — AstraZeneca (BREZTRI)

(Case T-175/22)

(2022/C 207/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AstraZeneca AB (Södertälje, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BREZTRI — European Union trade mark No 17 816 687

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2022 in Case R 737/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 27(3)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430;

—	Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 4 April 2022 — FA World Entertainment v EUIPO (FUCKING AWESOME)

(Case T-178/22)

(2022/C 207/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FA World Entertainment Inc. (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: M. Breuer, I. Dimitrov and C. Tenbrock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark FUCKING AWESOME — Application for registration No 1 564 573

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2022 in Case R 1131/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the action before the Board of Appeal, i.e. insofar as the Board of Appeal assumed a violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of the general principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration.

Action brought on 5 April 2022 — Farco-Pharma v EUIPO — Infarco (FARCO)

(Case T-179/22)

(2022/C 207/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Farco-Pharma GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Schoene, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Infarco, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark FARCO in red, white and black — Application No 17 838 178

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2022 in Case R 172/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision, by which the Board of Appeal confirmed that Opposition No B 3 054 342 against figurative mark No 17 838 178 was successful, and remit the case to EUIPO for reconsideration.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 11 April 2022 — Eggers & Franke v EUIPO — E. & J. Gallo Winery (EF)

(Case T-183/22)

(2022/C 207/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and H. Förster, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E. & J. Gallo Winery (Modesto, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark EF — Application for registration No 17 927 894

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2022 in Case R 729/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and in case of an intervention also the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 12 April 2022 — Eggers & Franke v EUIPO — E. & J. Gallo Winery (E & F)

(Case T-184/22)

(2022/C 207/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and H. Förster, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E. & J. Gallo Winery (Modesto, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark E & F — Application for registration No 18 037 083

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2022 in Case R 730/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and in case of an intervention also the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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