Official Journal C 399 of the European Union
Volume 63
English edition Information and Notices 23 November 2020
Contents
IV Notices
NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
Court of Justice of the European Union
2020/C 399/01 Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union ...... 1
Court of Justice
2020/C 399/02 Appointment of the First Advocate General ...... 2
2020/C 399/03 Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (urgent preliminary ruling procedure) ...... 2
2020/C 399/04 Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of three Judges ...... 2
2020/C 399/05 Taking of the oath by new Members of the Court ...... 2
2020/C 399/06 Assignment of Judges to Chambers ...... 3
2020/C 399/07 Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court ...... 3 EN V Announcements
COURT PROCEEDINGS
Court of Justice
2020/C 399/08 Case C-485/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Groupe Lactalis v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Provision of food information to consumers — Article 9(1)(i) and Article 26(2)(a) — Mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of foods — Failure to indicate which might mislead the consumer — Article 38(1) — Matters specifically covered by the harmonisation — Article 39(2) — Adoption of national measures providing for additional mandatory particulars concerning the country of origin or place of provenance of specific types or categories of foods — Conditions — Existence of a proven link between one or several qualities of the foods concerned and their origin or provenance — Concepts of ‘proven link’ and ‘qualities’ — Evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information — National measure providing for the mandatory indication of the national, European or non-European origin of milk) ...... 6
2020/C 399/09 Case C-601/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2020 — Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl v European Commission, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Pirelli & C. SpA (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — European mark et for submarine and underground power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Single and continuous infringement — Succession of legal entities — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Principle of equal treatment — Distortion of evidence — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 20 — European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings — Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises — Fines) ...... 7
2020/C 399/10 Case C-649/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — A v Daniel B, UD, AFP, B, L (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use not subject to compulsory medical prescription — Online sales — Advertising for a pharmacy’s website — Limitations — Prohibition on discounts where the order exceeds certain amounts and the use of paid referencing — Obligation to require a patient to complete a health questionnaire prior to validation of his or her first order on a pharmacy’s website — Protection of public health — Directive 2000/31/EC — Electronic commerce — Article 2(a) — Information society service — Article 2(h) — Coordinated field — Article 3 — Country-of-origin principle — Derogations — Justification — Protection of public health — Protection of the dignity of the profession of pharmacist — Prevention of the abusive consumption of medicinal products) ...... 8
2020/C 399/11 Case C-743/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rēzeknes tiesa — Latvia) — LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’ v Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural Funds — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(7) — Concept of ‘irregularity’ — Infringement of a provision of EU law resulting from an act or omission on the part of an economic operator — Prejudice caused to the general budget of the European Union — Insolvency of the beneficiary’s sole business partner) ...... 9
2020/C 399/12 Case C-777/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — WO v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Sickness insurance — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 20 — Scheduled treatment — Prior authorisation — Mandatory grant — Conditions — Insured person prevented from applying for prior authorisation — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 26 — Assumption of costs of scheduled treatment incurred by the insured person — Procedure for reimbursement — Directive 2011/24/EU — Cross-border healthcare — Article 8(1) — Healthcare that may be subject to prior authorisation — Principle of proportionality — Article 9(3) — Processing of applications for cross-border healthcare — Factors to be taken into account — Reasonable time — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU) ...... 9 2020/C 399/13 Case C-157/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Ehab Makhlouf v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria — List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) ...... 11
2020/C 399/14 Case C-158/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Razan Othman v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria — List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) ...... 11
2020/C 399/15 Case C-159/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant's name — Action for annulment) . . . . 12
2020/C 399/16 Case C-223/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt — Austria) — YS v NK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directives 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC — Scope — Prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of age or sex — Justifications — National legislation providing for an amount to be withheld from pensions paid directly to their recipients by undertakings in which the State has a majority participation and for the cancellation of the indexation of the amount of those pensions — Articles 16, 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Applicability — Discrimination on grounds of property — Infringement of the freedom of contract — Infringement of the right to property — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to an effective remedy) ...... 12
2020/C 399/17 Case C-233/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — B. v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Third-country national suffering from a serious illness — Return decision — Judicial remedy — Automatic suspensory effect — Conditions — Grant of social assistance — Articles 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) ...... 13
2020/C 399/18 Case C-260/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Bena Properties Co. SA v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant's name — Action for annulment) ...... 14
2020/C 399/19 Case C-261/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Cham Holding Co. SA v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities engaged in activities in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) ...... 15 2020/C 399/20 Case C-331/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98 — Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services — Annex III, point 1 — Definitions of ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ and ‘products normally used to supplement foodstuffs or as a substitute for foodstuffs’ — Aphrodisiac products) . 15
2020/C 399/21 Case C-348/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Drex Technologies SA v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) ...... 16
2020/C 399/22 Case C-349/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) ...... 16
2020/C 399/23 Case C-350/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Souruh SA v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) ...... 17
2020/C 399/24 Case C-402/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — LM v Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/CE — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Parent of an adult child suffering from a serious illness — Return decision — Judicial remedy — Automatic suspensory effect — Safeguards pending return — Basic needs — Articles 7, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) ...... 17
2020/C 399/25 Case C-405/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Vos Aannemingen BVBA v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17(2)(a) — Right to deduct input tax — Services also having benefited third parties — Existence of a direct and immediate link with the taxable person’s economic activity — Existence of a direct and immediate link with one or more output transactions) ...... 18
2020/C 399/26 Case C-516/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — NMI Technologietransfer GmbH v EuroNorm GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Exemption of certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market — Annex I — Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) — Definition — Independence test — Article 3(1) — Autonomous enterprise — Article 3(4) — Not included — Indirect control of 25 % of the capital or voting rights by public bodies — Concepts of ‘control’ and ‘public bodies’) ...... 19 2020/C 399/27 Case C-526/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Entoma SAS v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food safety — Novel foods and novel food ingredients — Regulation (EC) No 258/97 — Article 1(2)(e) — Concept of ‘food ingredients isolated from animals’ — Placing on the market — Whole insects intended for human consumption) ...... 20
2020/C 399/28 Case C-603/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Špecializovaný trestný súd — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against TG, UF (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Article 325 TFEU — Criminal proceedings concerning offences relating to subsidy fraud funded in part from the budget of the European Union — National law not allowing State bodies to obtain, in criminal proceedings, the recovery of subsidies by way of compensation for damage caused by the offences) ...... 20
2020/C 399/29 Case C-612/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — CC v European Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — Judgment of the General Court ruling on remittal from the General Court after the partial annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016, CC v Parliament (F-9/12 RENV, EU:F:2016:165) — Recruitment — Open competition EUR/A/151/98 — Errors made by the European Parliament in the management of the list of approved candidates — Material damage — Action to establish non-contractual liability) ...... 21
2020/C 399/30 Case C-195/20 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against XC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Effects of the surrender — Article 27 — Potential prosecutions for other offences — Specialty rule) ...... 22
2020/C 399/31 Case C-174/20 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2020 by STADA Arzneimittel AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2020 in Case T-487/18 — STADA Arzneimittel v European Union Intellectual Property Office ...... 22
2020/C 399/32 Case C-362/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 5 August 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV ...... 23
2020/C 399/33 Case C-395/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2020 — EP, GM v Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Tasimacilik A.S...... 23
2020/C 399/34 Case C-420/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2020 — criminal proceedings against HN ...... 24
General Court
2020/C 399/35 Case T-144/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Crédit agricole and Others v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1) (f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination) ...... 25 2020/C 399/36 Case T-145/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination) ...... 26
2020/C 399/37 Case T-146/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — BPCE and Others v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1) (f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination) ...... 26
2020/C 399/38 Case T-149/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1) (f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination) ...... 27
2020/C 399/39 Case T-408/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v EACEA (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement entered into under Erasmus Mundus action programme No 3 for the promotion of higher education — Grant agreement entered into under the programme for lifelong learning — Eligible costs — Debit notes — Repayment of part of the sums advanced — Contractual liability) ...... 28
2020/C 399/40 Case T-421/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Bauer Radio v EUIPO — Weinstein (MUSIKISS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MUSIKISS — Earlier United Kingdom word and figurative marks KISS — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom — Transition period — Decision of the Board of Appeal to remit the case to the Opposition Division — Admissibility — 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)) ...... 28
2020/C 399/41 Case T-433/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 –Bax v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Career transition support — Eligibility — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Duty of care — Discrimination on grounds of sex — Proportionality — Liability) . 29
2020/C 399/42 Case T-510/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Kaddour v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Damage to reputation — Determination of listing criteria) ...... 30
2020/C 399/43 Case T-36/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — PE Digital v EUIPO — Spark Networks Services (ElitePartner) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative EU trade mark ElitePartner — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons) ...... 30 2020/C 399/44 Case T-174/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Vincenti v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Promotion exercises 2014 to 2017 — Decision not to promote the applicant to the AST 8 grade — Right to be heard) ...... 31
2020/C 399/45 Case T-314/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Development and testing of sensor systems for quality and performance control in baking processes — Bread-Guard Project — Overlap of the project with another project financed under the same programme — Changes to the description of the tasks to be undertaken — Loss of the intellectual property rights required for the execution of the project — Overestimation of the number of people needed each month for the project — Beneficiaries’ duty to provide information — Serious misconduct — Termination by the Commission of the grant agreement) ...... 31
2020/C 399/46 Case T-401/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Freude an Farbe in yellow, orange, red, pink, violet, blue, turquoise, dark green, light green and anthracite — Earlier figurative EU trade mark Glemadur Freude an Farbe — 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)) ...... 32
2020/C 399/47 Case T-402/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Freude an Farbe — Earlier EU figurative mark Glemadur Freude an Farbe — 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)) ...... 33
2020/C 399/48 Case T-601/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Osório & Gonçalves v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (in.fi.ni.tu.de) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative EU trade mark in.fi.ni.tu.de — Earlier national word mark INFINITE — Admissibility of evidence — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) ...... 33
2020/C 399/49 Case T-608/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Veronese Design Company v EUIPO — Veronese (VERONESE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark VERONESE — Earlier EU word mark VERONESE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) ...... 34
2020/C 399/50 Case T-626/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Loch- und Rissfüller) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SOS Loch- und Rissfüller — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) ...... 35
2020/C 399/51 Case T-677/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Polfarmex v EUIPO — Kaminski (SYRENA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SYRENA — Genuine use of the mark — Extent of use — Proof of use — Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) 35 2020/C 399/52 Case T-381/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 September 2020 — Datax v REA (Interim measures — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Reimbursement of sums paid — Application for interim measures — No urgency) ...... 36
2020/C 399/53 Case T-536/20: Action brought on 25 August 2020 — LU v EIB ...... 36
2020/C 399/54 Case T-554/20: Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission ...... 38
2020/C 399/55 Case T-568/20: Action brought on 4 September 2020 — MF v eu-LISA ...... 39
2020/C 399/56 Case T-577/20: Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Ryanair v Commission ...... 39
2020/C 399/57 Case T-585/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — Polwax v Commission ...... 40
2020/C 399/58 Case T-590/20: Action brought on 25 September 2020 — Clariant and Clariant International v Commission ...... 42
2020/C 399/59 Case T-616/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect) ...... 42
2020/C 399/60 Case T-622/20: Action brought on 9 October 2020 — Aldi v EUIPO (Cachet) ...... 43 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/1
IV
(Notices)
NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union (2020/C 399/01)
Last publication
OJ C 390, 16.11.2020
Past publications
OJ C 378, 9.11.2020 OJ C 371, 3.11.2020 OJ C 359, 26.10.2020 OJ C 348, 19.10.2020 OJ C 339, 12.10.2020 OJ C 329, 5.10.2020
These texts are available on: EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu C 399/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
COURT OF JUSTICE
Appointment of the First Advocate General (2020/C 399/02)
At its General Meeting on 29 September 2020, the Court of Justice appointed, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Rules of Procedure (1), Mr Szpunar as First Advocate General for the period from 7 October 2020 to 6 October 2021.
Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (urgent preliminary ruling procedure) (2020/C 399/03)
At its General Meeting on 29 September 2020, the Court designated the First and the Fifth Chambers as the Chambers that are, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure, responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of those Rules, for the period from 7 October 2020 to 6 October 2021.
Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of three Judges (2020/C 399/04)
On 29 September 2020, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Bay Larsen as President of the Sixth Chamber, Mr Kumin as President of the Seventh Chamber, Mr Wahl as President of the Eighth Chamber, Mr Piçarra as President of the Ninth Chamber and Mr Ilešič as President of the Tenth Chamber for the period from 7 October 2020 to 6 October 2021.
Taking of the oath by new Members of the Court (2020/C 399/05)
Following his appointment as Advocate-General at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 September 2020 to 6 October 2021 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 2 September 2020 (1), Mr Rantos took the oath before the Court of Justice on 10 September 2020.
Following her appointment as Judge at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 September 2020 to 6 October 2024 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 2 September 2020 1, Ms Ziemele took the oath before the Court of Justice on 6 October 2020.
(1) In the version applicable until the next partial replacement of the Judges and Advocates-General, provided for in the second paragraph of Article 253 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (see the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Amendments of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, adopted on 26 November 2019, OJ L 316, 6.12.2019, p. 103). (1) OJ L 292, 7.9.2020, p. 1. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/3
Following his appointment as Judge at the Court of Justice for the period from 6 October 2020 to 6 October 2024 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 2 September 2020 1, Mr Passer took the oath before the Court of Justice on 6 October 2020.
Assignment of Judges to Chambers (2020/C 399/06)
At its General Meeting on 6 October 2020, the Court decided to assign Ms Ziemele to the Second and the Seventh Chambers and Mr Passer to the Third and the Eighth Chambers.
Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court (2020/C 399/07)
At its General Meeting on 6 October 2020, the Court drew up, in accordance with Article 27(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the list for determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:
Mr Juhász
Mr Passer
Mr Ilešič
Ms Ziemele
Mr Bay Larsen
Mr Wahl
Mr von Danwitz
Mr Jääskinen
Ms Toader
Mr Kumin
Mr Safjan
Mr Jarukaitis
Mr Šváby
Ms Rossi
Mr Rodin
Mr Piçarra
Mr Biltgen
Mr Xuereb
Ms Jürimäe
Mr Lycourgos C 399/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
At its General Meeting on 6 October 2020, the Court drew up, in accordance with Article 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the list for determining the composition of the Second and the Third Chambers as follows:
Second Chamber
Mr Arabadjiev Mr von Danwitz Ms Ziemele Mr Xuereb Mr Kumin
Third Chamber
Ms Prechal Mr Biltgen Mr Passer Ms Rossi Mr Wahl At its General Meeting on 6 October 2020, the Court drew up, in accordance with Article 28(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:
Sixth Chamber
Mr Bay Larsen Ms Toader Mr Safjan Mr Jääskinen
Seventh Chamber
Mr Kumin Mr von Danwitz Mr Xuereb Ms Ziemele
Eighth Chamber
Mr Wahl Mr Biltgen Ms Rossi Mr Passer
Ninth Chamber
Mr Piçarra Mr Šváby Mr Rodin Ms Jürimäe 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/5
Tenth Chamber
Mr Ilešič Mr Juhász Mr Lycourgos Mr Jarukaitis C 399/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
V
(Announcements)
COURT PROCEEDINGS
COURT OF JUSTICE
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Groupe Lactalis v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Case C-485/18) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Provision of food information to consumers — Article 9(1)(i) and Article 26(2)(a) — Mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of foods — Failure to indicate which might mislead the consumer — Article 38(1) — Matters specifically covered by the harmonisation — Article 39(2) — Adoption of national measures providing for additional mandatory particulars concerning the country of origin or place of provenance of specific types or categories of foods — Conditions — Existence of a proven link between one or several qualities of the foods concerned and their origin or provenance — Concepts of ‘proven link’ and ‘qualities’ — Evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information — National measure providing for the mandatory indication of the national, European or non-European origin of milk) (2020/C 399/08) Language of the case: French
Referring court Conseil d’État
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Groupe Lactalis
Defendants: Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
Operative part of the judgment 1. Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of milk or milk used as an ingredient must be regarded as a ‘matter specifically harmonised’ by that regulation, within the meaning of Article 38(1) of that regulation, where failure to include that indication might mislead the consumer, and as not precluding the Member States from adopting measures requiring additional mandatory particulars on the basis of Article 39 of that regulation, on the condition that those particulars are compatible with the objective pursued by the EU legislature by means of the specific harmonisation of the matter of mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance and that they form one coherent whole with that indication. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/7
2. Article 39 of Regulation No 1169/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of national measures that are justified, in the light of paragraph 1 of that article, on grounds of the protection of consumers, the two criteria laid down in paragraph 2 of that article, that is to say, first, the existence of a ‘proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance’, and, second, the ‘evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information’ must not be considered in combination, so that the existence of that proven link cannot be examined solely on the basis of subjective elements relating to the importance of the association that the majority of consumers may make between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance.
3. Article 39(2) of Regulation No 1169/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘qualities of the food’ does not include the resilience of the food to transport and the risk of deterioration during transit, so that that resilience cannot be taken into account when examining whether there is a possible ‘proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance’, referred to in that provision.
(1) OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2020 — Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl v European Commission, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Pirelli & C. SpA (Case C-601/18 P) (1) (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — European mark et for submarine and underground power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Single and continuous infringement — Succession of legal entities — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Principle of equal treatment — Distortion of evidence — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 20 — European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings — Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises — Fines) (2020/C 399/09) Language of the case: English
Parties Appellants: Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (represented initially by: C. Tesauro and L. Armati, avvocati, and subsequently by C. Firth and C. Griesenbach, Solicitors)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, C. Sjödin, T. Vecchi and P. Rossi, acting as Agents), The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (represented by: J. Koponen, advokat, and A. Mangiaracina, avvocatessa), Pirelli & C. SpA (represented by: G. Rizza and M. Siragusa, avvocati)
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Declares that Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
3. Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018. C 399/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — A v Daniel B, UD, AFP, B, L (Case C-649/18) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use not subject to compulsory medical prescription — Online sales — Advertising for a pharmacy’s website — Limitations — Prohibition on discounts where the order exceeds certain amounts and the use of paid referencing — Obligation to require a patient to complete a health questionnaire prior to validation of his or her first order on a pharmacy’s website — Protection of public health — Directive 2000/31/EC — Electronic commerce — Article 2(a) — Information society service — Article 2(h) — Coordinated field — Article 3 — Country-of-origin principle — Derogations — Justification — Protection of public health — Protection of the dignity of the profession of pharmacist — Prevention of the abusive consumption of medicinal products) (2020/C 399/10) Language of the case: French
Referring court Cour d’appel de Paris
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: A
Defendants: Daniel B, UD, AFP, B, L
Operative part of the judgment Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that:
— it does not preclude the application, by the Member State of destination of an online sales service relating to medicinal products not subject to medical prescription, to the provider of that service established in another Member State, of national legislation which prohibits pharmacies from soliciting their clients through certain procedures and methods, in particular through the extensive sending of post and leaflets for advertising purposes outside their pharmacy, provided that it does not result in the provider in question being prevented from carrying out any advertising outside his or her pharmacy, regardless of the medium used or the scale thereof, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;
— it does not preclude the application, by the Member State of destination of an online sales service relating to medicinal products not subject to medical prescription, to the provider of that service established in another Member State, of national legislation which prohibits pharmacies from making promotional offers consisting in a discount on the total price of an order of medicinal products once a certain amount is exceeded, provided, however, that such a prohibition is sufficiently circumscribed and particularly targeted solely at medicinal products and not at mere para-pharmaceutical products, which it is for the national court to ascertain;
— it does not preclude the application, by the Member State of destination of an online sales service relating to medicinal products not subject to medical prescription, to the provider of that service established in another Member State, of national legislation which requires that pharmacies selling such medicinal products include a health questionnaire in the process of ordering medicinal products online;
— it precludes the application, by the Member State of destination of an online sales service relating to medicinal products not subject to medical prescription, to the provider of that service established in another Member State, of national legislation which prohibits pharmacies selling such medicinal products from using paid referencing on search engines and price comparison websites, unless it is duly established before the referring court that such legislation is appropriate to ensure the attainment of the objective of protecting public health and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective.
(1) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/9
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rēzeknes tiesa — Latvia) — LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’ v Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra (Case C-743/18) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural Funds — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(7) — Concept of ‘irregularity’ — Infringement of a provision of EU law resulting from an act or omission on the part of an economic operator — Prejudice caused to the general budget of the European Union — Insolvency of the beneficiary’s sole business partner) (2020/C 399/11) Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court Rēzeknes tiesa
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’
Defendant: Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra
Operative part of the judgment Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the beneficiary of European Regional Development Fund funding fails to achieve, during the relevant period, the level of turnover expected as part of the project eligible for financing because the activities of its sole business partner have been suspended or because that partner has become insolvent may be regarded as an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of that provision.
(1) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — WO v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (Case C-777/18) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Sickness insurance — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 20 — Scheduled treatment — Prior authorisation — Mandatory grant — Conditions — Insured person prevented from applying for prior authorisation — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 26 — Assumption of costs of scheduled treatment incurred by the insured person — Procedure for reimbursement — Directive 2011/24/EU — Cross-border healthcare — Article 8 (1) — Healthcare that may be subject to prior authorisation — Principle of proportionality — Article 9 (3) — Processing of applications for cross-border healthcare — Factors to be taken into account — Reasonable time — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU) (2020/C 399/12) Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság C 399/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: WO
Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
Operative part of the judgment 1. The combined provisions of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, relating to scheduled treatment, read in the light of Article 56 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that:
— healthcare received in a Member State other than the Member State in which the insured person resides, on his or her own initiative, on the ground that, according to that person, that treatment or treatment with the same efficacy was unavailable within a time limit which is medically justifiable, comes within the definition of ‘scheduled treatment’ within the meaning of those provisions, so that the receipt of such treatment is, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Regulation No 883/2004, in principle subject to the granting of an authorisation by the competent institution of the Member State of residence;
— an insured person who has received scheduled treatment in a Member State other than his or her Member State of residence, without having applied for authorisation from the competent institution, pursuant to Article 20(1) of that regulation, is entitled to reimbursement, under the conditions laid down in that regulation, of the cost of that treatment, if
— first, between the date on which the appointment for the purposes of a medical examination and possible treatment in another Member State was made and the date on which that treatment was given to the insured person in that Member State, to which he or she had to travel, that person was, for reasons relating to his or her state of health or to the need to receive urgent treatment there, in a situation which prevented him or her from applying for such authorisation from the competent institution or was not able to wait for the decision of that institution on such application, and
— second, the other conditions for the assumption of the costs of the benefits in kind, pursuant to the second sentence of Article 20(2) of that regulation are also met.
It is for the referring court to carry out the necessary verifications in that respect.
2. Article 56 TFEU and point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the absence of prior authorisation, excludes reimbursement, within the limits of the cover provided by the health insurance scheme in the Member State of affiliation, of the costs of a medical consultation incurred in another Member State.
Article 56 TFEU and Article 8(1) of Directive 2011/24 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation — in a case where the insured person was prevented from applying for such authorisation or was not able to wait for the decision of the competent institution on the application for authorisation, for reasons relating to his or her state of health or to the need to receive urgent hospital care or healthcare involving the use of highly specialised and cost-intensive medical equipment, even though all other conditions for such costs to be assumed are met — which, in the absence of prior authorisation, excludes reimbursement, within the limits of the cover provided by the health insurance scheme in the Member State of affiliation, of the costs of that care given to that person in another Member State;
3. Article 9(3) of Directive 2011/24 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for a time limit of 31 days to grant prior authorisation of the assumption of costs of cross-border healthcare and 23 days to refuse it, while allowing the competent institution to take into account the individual circumstances and the urgency of the case in question.
(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/11
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Ehab Makhlouf v Council of the European Union (Case C-157/19 P) (1) (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria — List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) (2020/C 399/13) Language of the case: French
Parties Appellant: Ehab Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Mr Ehab Makhlouf to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Razan Othman v Council of the European Union (Case C-158/19 P) (1) (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria — List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) (2020/C 399/14) Language of the case: French
Parties Appellant: Razan Othman (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Mrs Razan Othman to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019. C 399/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) v Council of the European Union (Case C-159/19 P) (1) (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant's name — Action for annulment) (2020/C 399/15) Language of the case: French
Parties Appellant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt — Austria) — YS v NK (Case C-223/19) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directives 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC — Scope — Prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of age or sex — Justifications — National legislation providing for an amount to be withheld from pensions paid directly to their recipients by undertakings in which the State has a majority participation and for the cancellation of the indexation of the amount of those pensions — Articles 16, 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Applicability — Discrimination on grounds of property — Infringement of the freedom of contract — Infringement of the right to property — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to an effective remedy) (2020/C 399/16) Language of the case: German
Referring court Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: YS
Defendant: NK 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/13
Operative part of the judgment 1. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of those directives includes provisions of the law of a Member State pursuant to which (i) part of the amount of the occupational pension which the employer is contractually bound to pay directly to its former employee must be withheld at source by that employer and (ii) the contractually agreed indexation of the amount of that benefit is ineffective;
2. Article 5(c) and Article 7(1)(a)(iii) of Directive 2006/54 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the recipients of a pension that a State-controlled undertaking is contractually bound to pay them directly and that exceeds certain thresholds set in that legislation are deprived of (i) an amount withheld from the part of that pension exceeding one of those thresholds and (ii) the benefit of a contractually agreed indexation of that pension, even though the percentage of former workers the amount of whose occupational pension has been affected by that legislation is considerably higher among male former workers coming within the scope of that legislation than among female former workers coming within its scope, provided that those consequences are justified by objective factors wholly unrelated to any discrimination based on sex, which it is for the referring court to verify;
3. Article 2(1) and (2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which recipients of a pension that a State-controlled undertaking is contractually bound to pay them directly and that exceeds certain thresholds set in that legislation are deprived of (i) an amount withheld from the part of that pension exceeding one of those thresholds and (ii) the benefit of a contractually agreed indexation of that pension, on the sole ground that that legislation affects only recipients above a certain age;
4. Articles 16, 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which recipients of a pension that a State-controlled undertaking is contractually bound to pay them directly and that exceeds certain thresholds set in that legislation are deprived of (i) an amount withheld from the part of that pension exceeding one of those thresholds and (ii) the benefit of a contractually agreed indexation of that pension;
5. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State’s failure to provide, in its legal system, for a free-standing legal remedy for, primarily, an examination of whether national provisions implementing that right are compatible with EU law, provided that it is possible for such examination to take place indirectly.
(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — B. v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège (Case C-233/19) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Third-country national suffering from a serious illness — Return decision — Judicial remedy — Automatic suspensory effect — Conditions — Grant of social assistance — Articles 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) (2020/C 399/17) Language of the case: French
Referring court Cour du travail de Liège C 399/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: B.
Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Liège
Operative part of the judgment Articles 5 and 13 of 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, read in the light of Article 19(2) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute on social assistance, the outcome of which is linked to the possible suspension of the effects of a return decision taken in respect of a third-country national suffering from a serious illness, must hold that an action for annulment and suspension of that decision leads to automatic suspension of that decision, even though suspension of that decision does not result from the application of national legislation, where:
— that action contains arguments seeking to establish that the enforcement of that decision would expose that third-country national to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his or her state of health, which does not appear to be manifestly unfounded, and that
— that legislation does not provide for any other remedy, governed by precise, clear and foreseeable rules, which automatically entail the suspension of such a decision.
(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Bena Properties Co. SA v Council of the European Union (Case C-260/19 P) (1) (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant's name — Action for annulment) (2020/C 399/18) Language of the case: French
Parties Appellant: Bena Properties Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Bena Properties Co. SA to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/15
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Cham Holding Co. SA v Council of the European Union (Case C-261/19 P) (1) (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities engaged in activities in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) (2020/C 399/19) Language of the case: French
Parties Appellant: Cham Holding Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Cham Holding Co. SA to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X (Case C-331/19) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98 — Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services — Annex III, point 1 — Definitions of ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ and ‘products normally used to supplement foodstuffs or as a substitute for foodstuffs’ — Aphrodisiac products) (2020/C 399/20) Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Defendant: X C 399/16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Operative part of the judgment The concepts of ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ and ‘products normally used to supplement foodstuffs or as a substitute for foodstuffs’, set out in point 1 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that they refer to all products containing nutrients which serve as building blocks, generate energy and regulate its functions, which are necessary to keep the human body alive and enable it to function and develop, and which are consumed in order to provide it with those nutrients.
(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Drex Technologies SA v Council of the European Union (Case C-348/19 P) (1) (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) (2020/C 399/21) Language of the case: French
Parties Appellant: Drex Technologies SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat) Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court: 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders Drex Technologies SA to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council of the European Union (Case C-349/19 P) (1) (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) (2020/C 399/22) Language of the case: French
Parties Appellant: Almashreq Investment Fund (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat) Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court: 1. Dismisses the appeal; 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/17
2. Orders Almashreq Investment Fund to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Souruh SA v Council of the European Union (Case C-350/19 P) (1) (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment) (2020/C 399/23) Language of the case: French
Parties Appellant: Souruh SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Souruh SA to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — LM v Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing (Case C-402/19) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/CE — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Parent of an adult child suffering from a serious illness — Return decision — Judicial remedy — Automatic suspensory effect — Safeguards pending return — Basic needs — Articles 7, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) (2020/C 399/24) Language of the case: French
Referring court Cour du travail de Liège
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: LM
Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing C 399/18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Operative part of the judgment Articles 5, 13 and 14 of Directive 2008/115 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, read in the light of Article 7, Article 19(2) and Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide, as far as possible, for the basic needs of a third-country national to be met where:
— that national has appealed against a return decision made in respect of him or her;
— the adult child of that third-country national is suffering from a serious illness;
— the presence of that third-country national with that adult child is essential;
— an appeal was brought on behalf of that adult child against a return decision taken against him or her, the enforcement of which may expose that adult child to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his or her state of health, and
— that third-country national does not have the means to meet his or her needs himself or herself.
(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Vos Aannemingen BVBA v Belgische Staat (Case C-405/19) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17(2)(a) — Right to deduct input tax — Services also having benefited third parties — Existence of a direct and immediate link with the taxable person’s economic activity — Existence of a direct and immediate link with one or more output transactions) (2020/C 399/25) Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court Hof van Cassatie
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Vos Aannemingen BVBA
Defendant: Belgische Staat
Operative part of the judgment 1. Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977, on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that expenditure incurred by a taxable person, a property developer, in respect of advertising costs, administrative costs and estate agents’ commission, in connection with the sale of apartments, also benefits a third party, does not preclude that taxable person deducting in full the input value added tax paid on that expenditure where, firstly, there is a direct and immediate link between that expenditure and the taxable person’s economic activity and, secondly, the benefit to the third party is ancillary to the taxable person’s business purposes. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/19
2. Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the expenditure incurred by the taxable person also benefits a third party does not preclude that taxable person deducting in full the input value added tax paid in relation to that expenditure, in the case where that expenditure does not relate to the taxable person’s general overheads but constitutes costs attributable to particular output transactions, in so far as those costs maintain a direct and immediate link with the taxable person’s taxable transactions, which is for the referring court to assess with regard to all of the circumstances in which those transactions occurred.
3. Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a third party benefits from expenditure incurred by the taxable person, the fact that it is possible for the taxable person to pass on to the third party a part of the expenditure so incurred constitutes one of the elements, along with all of the other circumstances in which the transactions concerned occurred, which the referring court must consider for the purposes of determining the scope of the taxable person’s right to deduct value added tax.
(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — NMI Technologietransfer GmbH v EuroNorm GmbH (Case C-516/19) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Exemption of certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market — Annex I — Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) — Definition — Independence test — Article 3(1) — Autonomous enterprise — Article 3(4) — Not included — Indirect control of 25 % of the capital or voting rights by public bodies — Concepts of ‘control’ and ‘public bodies’) (2020/C 399/26) Language of the case: German
Referring court Verwaltungsgericht Berlin
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: NMI Technologietransfer GmbH
Defendant: EuroNorm GmbH
Operative part of the judgment Article 3(4) of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which excludes an enterprise from being regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), where the body of the enterprise which holds the main part of its capital, although it is not authorised to ensure its day-to-day management, is composed for the most part of members representing public bodies, within the meaning of that article, so that the latter jointly exercise, by that sole fact, indirect control, within the meaning of that article, over the former enterprise, it being understood that:
— first, the concept of ‘public body’ in that article is intended to include entities such as universities and higher education establishments as well as a chamber of commerce and industry, provided that those entities are created to specifically meet needs in the general interest, have legal personality and are either financed for the most part or controlled directly or indirectly by the State, by regional or local authorities or by other public bodies, it being irrelevant in that respect that the persons appointed on the proposal of those entities serve on a voluntary basis within the enterprise concerned, since it is in their capacity as members of the latter that they have been proposed and appointed, and C 399/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
— second, for the purposes of the existence of such control, it is sufficient for public bodies to hold jointly, albeit indirectly, at least 25 % of the capital or voting rights of the enterprise concerned, in accordance with the terms of the statutes of the enterprise which exercises direct control over it, without it being necessary to examine, moreover, whether those bodies are able to influence and coordinate the effective exercise by their representatives of their voting rights or whether those representatives actually take account of the interests of those bodies.
(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Entoma SAS v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (Case C-526/19) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food safety — Novel foods and novel food ingredients — Regulation (EC) No 258/97 — Article 1(2)(e) — Concept of ‘food ingredients isolated from animals’ — Placing on the market — Whole insects intended for human consumption) (2020/C 399/27) Language of the case: French
Referring court Conseil d’État
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Entoma SAS
Defendants: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation
Operative part of the judgment Article 1(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that foods consisting of whole animals intended to be consumed as such, including whole insects, do not fall within the scope of that regulation.
(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Špecializovaný trestný súd — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against TG, UF (Case C-603/19) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Article 325 TFEU — Criminal proceedings concerning offences relating to subsidy fraud funded in part from the budget of the European Union — National law not allowing State bodies to obtain, in criminal proceedings, the recovery of subsidies by way of compensation for damage caused by the offences) (2020/C 399/28) Language of the case: Slovak
Referring court Špecializovaný trestný súd 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/21
Parties to the main criminal proceedings TG, UF
Interveners: Úrad špeciálnej prokuratúry Generálnej prokuratúry Slovenskej republiky, Úrad práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny Košice, Úrad práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny Vranov nad Topľou, Úrad práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny Michalovce
Operative part of the judgment 1. Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA must be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to legal persons or to the State, even if national law confers on them the status of injured party in criminal proceedings;
2. Article 325 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, as interpreted in national case-law, under which, in criminal proceedings, the State may not claim compensation for damage caused to it by fraudulent conduct on the part of the accused person resulting in the misappropriation of funds from the budget of the European Union, and under which the State does not have, in those proceedings, any other type of action available to it by which it may assert its right as against the accused, provided that, which it is for the referring court to verify, the national legislation provides for effective proceedings for the recovery of assistance wrongly received from the budget of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — CC v European Parliament (Case C-612/19 P) (1) (Appeal — Civil service — Judgment of the General Court ruling on remittal from the General Court after the partial annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016, CC v Parliament (F-9/12 RENV, EU:F:2016:165) — Recruitment — Open competition EUR/A/151/98 — Errors made by the European Parliament in the management of the list of approved candidates — Material damage — Action to establish non-contractual liability) (2020/C 399/29) Language of the case: French
Parties Appellant: CC (represented by: G. Maximini, Rechtsanwalt)
Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian, M. Ecker and E. Despotopoulou, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court hereby:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders CC to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020. C 399/22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against XC (Case C-195/20 PPU) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Effects of the surrender — Article 27 — Potential prosecutions for other offences — Specialty rule) (2020/C 399/30) Language of the case: German
Referring court Bundesgerichtshof
Party/parties in the main proceedings XC
other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof
Operative part of the judgment Article 27(2) and (3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the specialty rule provided for in Article 27(2) does not preclude a measure involving deprivation of liberty taken against a person referred to in a first European arrest warrant on the basis of a different offence to that which constituted the basis for his or her surrender under that warrant and prior to that offence, when that person’s departure from the Member State which issued the first warrant was voluntary and he or she was surrendered to that Member State under a second European arrest warrant issued after that departure for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence, provided that, under the second European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority of that Member State gave its consent to extending the prosecution to the offence which gave rise to that measure involving deprivation of liberty.
(1) OJ C 230, 13.7.2020.
Appeal brought on 24 April 2020 by STADA Arzneimittel AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2020 in Case T-487/18 — STADA Arzneimittel v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Case C-174/20 P) (2020/C 399/31) Language of the case: German
Parties Appellant: STADA Arzneimittel AG (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, Rechtsanwälte)
Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 3 September 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/23
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 5 August 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV (Case C-362/20) (2020/C 399/32) Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
Parties to the main proceedings Appellants: Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën
Respondents: Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV
Question referred Are threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron, from China, subject to anti-dumping duties under Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand (OJ 2012 L 318, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 129, p. 1), given the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European [Union], in its judgment of 12 July 2018 in Joined Cases C-397/17 and C-398/17, that tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron are not tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron and that tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron fall under a different subheading than tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2020 — EP, GM v Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Tasimacilik A.S. (Case C-395/20) (2020/C 399/33) Language of the case: German
Referring court Landgericht Düsseldorf
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: EP, GM
Defendant: Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Tasimacilik A.S.
Questions referred 1. Is a flight cancelled within the meaning of Articles 2(l) and 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) where the operating air carrier postpones a flight booked as part of a package holiday and scheduled to depart at 13:20 (LT) until 16:10 (LT) on the same day? C 399/24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
2. Does the notification nine days prior to the start of the trip of the postponement of a flight from 13:20 (LT) to 16:10 (LT) on the same day constitute an offer of re-routing within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c)(ii) of Regulation No 261/2004, and, if so, must that offer meet the requirements of Articles 5(1)(a) and 8(1) of Regulation No 261/2004?
(1) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2020 — criminal proceedings against HN (Case C-420/20) (2020/C 399/34) Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court Sofiyski rayonen sad
Parties to the main proceedings HN
Questions referred 1. Is it permissible for the right of the accused person to be present in person at the trial concerning him, as provided for in Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), to be restricted by national legislation under which a ban under administrative law on entering and residing in the country in which the criminal proceedings are being conducted may be imposed on foreign nationals who have been formally charged? 2. If the first question were to be answered in the affirmative, would the conditions laid down in Article 8(2)(a) and/or (b) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), with respect to the holding of a trial in the absence of a foreign accused person, be fulfilled in the case where the foreign national was duly informed of the criminal case and of the consequences of non-appearance and is represented by a mandated lawyer appointed either by the accused person or by the State, but the appearance in person of the accused person is precluded by a ban, adopted in the administrative proceedings, on entering and residing in the country in which the criminal proceedings are being conducted? 3. Is it permissible for the right of the accused person to be present at the trial concerning him, as provided for in Article 8 (1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), to be converted by national legislation into an obligation incumbent on that person under procedural law? In particular, do the Member States thereby ensure a higher level of protection within the meaning of recital 48 [of the Directive] or is such a course of action, on the contrary, incompatible with recital 35 of the Directive, which states that the aforementioned right of the accused person is not absolute and can be waived? 4. Is an advance waiver by the accused person of the right to be present in person at the trial concerning him, as provided for in Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), which was clearly expressed during the pre-trial investigation, permissible, provided that the accused person was informed of the consequences of non-appearance?
(1) OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/25
GENERAL COURT
Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Crédit agricole and Others v ECB (Case T-144/18) (1) (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination) (2020/C 399/35) Language of the case: French
Parties Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 69 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)
Re: Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019- FRCAG-17 of 14 February 2019.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Annuls paragraph 9 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of Annex A thereto as well as paragraph 9 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-17 of the ECB of 14 February 2019 and Article 3 of the annex thereto;
2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018. C 399/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB (Case T-145/18) (1) (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination) (2020/C 399/36) Language of the case: French
Parties Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and the 37 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)
Re: Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of 14 February 2019.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Annuls paragraph 8 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;
2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — BPCE and Others v ECB (Case T-146/18) (1) (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination) (2020/C 399/37) Language of the case: French
Parties Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and the 36 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers) 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/27
Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)
Re: Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695005MS X1OYEMGDF46/338 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBPC-22 of 14 February 2019.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Annuls paragraph 4 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraphs 3.4 to 3.7 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBPC 22 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;
2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB (Case T-149/18) (1) (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination) (2020/C 399/38) Language of the case: French
Parties Applicants: Arkéa Direct Bank (Puteaux, France) and the nine other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)
Re: Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of 14 February 2019.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Annuls paragraph 8 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;
2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018. C 399/28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v EACEA (Case T-408/18) (1) (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement entered into under Erasmus Mundus action programme No 3 for the promotion of higher education — Grant agreement entered into under the programme for lifelong learning — Eligible costs — Debit notes — Repayment of part of the sums advanced — Contractual liability) (2020/C 399/39) Language of the case: Greek
Parties Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)
Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (represented by: H. Monet and P. Kalyva, acting as Agents, and G. Dellis, K. Sakellariou and A. Chasapopoulos, lawyers)
Re: Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking, first, a declaration that the debts set out in debit notes with reference numbers 3241804682 and 3241804913 of 9 and 16 April 2018 issued by the EACEA against the applicant represent eligible costs of EUR 28 976,83 and EUR 77 169,78, respectively, and, second, an order that the EACEA repay those sums to the applicant, together with default interest.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Bauer Radio v EUIPO — Weinstein (MUSIKISS) (Case T-421/18) (1) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MUSIKISS — Earlier United Kingdom word and figurative marks KISS — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom — Transition period — Decision of the Board of Appeal to remit the case to the Opposition Division — Admissibility — 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)) (2020/C 399/40) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: Bauer Radio Ltd (Peterborough, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Messenger, Barrister)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Simon Weinstein (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M.-R. Petsche and M. Grötschl, lawyers) 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/29
Re: Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 510/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bauer Radio and Mr Weinstein.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Bauer Radio Ltd to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 –Bax v ECB (Case T-433/18) (1) (Civil service — ECB staff — Career transition support — Eligibility — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Duty of care — Discrimination on grounds of sex — Proportionality — Liability) (2020/C 399/41) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: Annemieke Bax (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Malfrère and D. Camilleri Podestà, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
Re: Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for the annulment of, first, the decision of the ECB of 14 December 2017 rejecting the applicant’s application for career transition support and, in so far as necessary, the decision of the ECB of 8 May 2018 dismissing the applicant’s special appeal against the abovementioned decision of 14 December 2017 and, second, for compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 328, 17.9.2018. C 399/30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Kaddour v Council (Case T-510/18) (1) (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Damage to reputation — Determination of listing criteria) (2020/C 399/42) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors, R. Blakeley, Barrister, and M. Lester QC)
Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and T. Haas, acting as Agents)
Re: Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Mr Khaled Kaddour to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — PE Digital v EUIPO — Spark Networks Services (ElitePartner) (Case T-36/19) (1) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative EU trade mark ElitePartner — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons) (2020/C 399/43) Language of the case: German
Parties Applicant: PE Digital GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Spark Networks Services GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Brennecke and J. Gräbig, lawyers)
Re: Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2018 (Case R 614/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Spark Networks Services and PE Digital. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/31
Operative part of the judgment The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders PE Digital GmbH to pay the costs, including those incurred by Spark Networks Services GmbH in the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
(1) OJ C 93, 11. 3. 2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Vincenti v EUIPO (Case T-174/19) (1) (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Promotion exercises 2014 to 2017 — Decision not to promote the applicant to the AST 8 grade — Right to be heard) (2020/C 399/44) Language of the case: German
Parties Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by H. Tettenborn, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)
Re: Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 not to promote the applicant to the AST 8 grade in the 2014 to 2017 promotion exercises.
Operative part of the judgment The Court: 1. Annuls the decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 June 2018 not to promote Mr Guillaume Vincenti to the AST 8 grade in the 2014 to 2017 promotion exercises; 2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission (Case T-314/19) (1) (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Development and testing of sensor systems for quality and performance control in baking processes — Bread-Guard Project — Overlap of the project with another project financed under the same programme — Changes to the description of the tasks to be undertaken — Loss of the intellectual property rights required for the execution of the project — Overestimation of the number of people needed each month for the project — Beneficiaries’ duty to provide information — Serious misconduct — Termination by the Commission of the grant agreement) (2020/C 399/45) Language of the case: Spanish
Parties Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers) C 399/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Izquierdo Pérez, acting as Agents)
Re: Application pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission was not justified in terminating the grant agreement relating to the FP7-KBBE-2013-7-613647 BreadGuard Project
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe) (Case T-401/19) (1) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Freude an Farbe in yellow, orange, red, pink, violet, blue, turquoise, dark green, light green and anthracite — Earlier figurative EU trade mark Glemadur Freude an Farbe — 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)) (2020/C 399/46) Language of the case: German
Parties Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)
Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 (Case R 1498/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Synthesa Chemie and Brillux.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Brillux GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/33
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe) (Case T-402/19) (1) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Freude an Farbe — Earlier EU figurative mark Glemadur Freude an Farbe — 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)) (2020/C 399/47) Language of the case: German
Parties Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)
Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 (Case R 1434/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Synthesa Chemie and Brillux.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Brillux GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Osório & Gonçalves v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (in.fi.ni.tu.de) (Case T-601/19) (1) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative EU trade mark in.fi.ni.tu. de — Earlier national word mark INFINITE — Admissibility of evidence — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) (2020/C 399/48) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: Osório & Gonçalves, SA (Galamares, Portugal) (represented by: D. Araújo e Sá Serras Pereira, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain) C 399/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2019 (Case R 1579/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Osório & Gonçalves.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Osório & Gonçalves, SA, to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Veronese Design Company v EUIPO — Veronese (VERONESE) (Case T-608/19) (1) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark VERONESE — Earlier EU word mark VERONESE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60 (1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) (2020/C 399/49) Language of the case: French
Parties Applicant: Veronese Design Company Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Veronese SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Herrburger, lawyer)
Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2019 (Case R 2434/2018-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Veronese and Veronese Design Company.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 June 2019 (Case R 2434/2018-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Veronese SAS and Veronese Design Company Ltd;
2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Veronese Design Company;
3. Orders Veronese to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/35
Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Loch- und Rissfüller) (Case T-626/19) (1) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SOS Loch- und Rissfüller — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) (2020/C 399/50) Language of the case: German
Parties Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)
Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Case R 278/2019-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SOS Loch- und Rissfüller as an EU trade mark.
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Daw SE to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Polfarmex v EUIPO — Kaminski (SYRENA) (Case T-677/19) (1) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SYRENA — Genuine use of the mark — Extent of use — Proof of use — Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) (2020/C 399/51) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: Polfarmex S.A. (Kutno, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Arkadiusz Kaminski (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: E. Pijewska, M. Mazurek and W. Trybowski, lawyers)
Re: Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1861/2018-2 and R 1840/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Polfarmex and Mr Kaminski. C 399/36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Operative part of the judgment The Court:
1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1861/2018-2 and R 1840/2018-2) to the extent that it upheld the registration of the European Union trade mark No 9262767 in respect of ‘cars’ in Class 12 other than ‘racing cars’;
2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 September 2020 — Datax v REA (Case T-381/20 R) (Interim measures — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Reimbursement of sums paid — Application for interim measures — No urgency) (2020/C 399/52) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: Datax sp. z o.o. (Wroclaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Bober, lawyer)
Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, lawyer)
Re: Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of REA measure Ares(2019) 7018535 of 13 November 2019 concerning project 261659 (HELP) and project 286822 (GreenNets), concerning rejection and recovery of eligible costs and debit notes issued on the basis of that measure.
Operative part of the order 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. The costs are reserved.
Action brought on 25 August 2020 — LU v EIB (Case T-536/20) (2020/C 399/53) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: LU (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)
Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/37
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should:
— in the first place, annul the final report delivered by the investigation panel on 13 May 2020 as well as the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank, dated 26 May 2020, and any disciplinary procedure taken on the basis of that final report and decision,
— as a subsidiary claim, amend the conclusions of the final report delivered by the investigation panel on 13 May 2020 and the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank, dated 26 May 2020, and order removal of all irrelevant and inappropriate facts and statements from both documents, notably any reference to malicious behaviour or fault of the applicant as well as any reference to a disciplinary procedure,
— in any case, grant the following claims:
— award damages in relation to the violation of the applicant’s physical and mental integrity and his right of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, his right to good administration and his right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, amounting to EUR 25 000;
— award damages in relation to the non-material prejudice suffered by the applicant, amounting to EUR 25 000;
— award compensation for medical costs (not reimbursed under the EIB medical insurance) as a result of the damage caused by the defendant and suffered by the applicant in an amount of EUR 200 (including VAT); and
— order repayment of legal fees for the current proceedings, amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 15 000.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’): respect for mental integrity and fair and just working conditions.
2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter: freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
3. Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time, under Article 41(1) of the Charter.
— The applicant argues that a violation of the duty of impartiality took place because of the defendant’s failure to consider certain arguments and facts;
— Secondly, it is argued that impartiality was not respected because the defendant failed adequately to consider certain comments of the applicant;
— Thirdly, the applicant further argues that a breach of the right to impartial treatment occurred because the defendant failed to engage expert testimony.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging, in relation to the conduct of the formal procedure and the findings of the final investigation panel report, that the applicant’s right, under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, to be heard before an adverse measure is taken, was not respected.
— The applicant alleges that his right to be heard was infringed because a number of his comments were not considered by the investigation panel.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, under Article 47 of the Charter. C 399/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
6. Sixth plea in law, alleging, in relation to the President of the EIB’s endorsement of the final investigation panel report, that the applicant’s right, under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, to be heard before an adverse measure is taken, was not respected.
7. Seventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter: the obligation that the administration give reasons for its decisions.
— The applicant alleges that the defendant violated the obligation to give a reasoned decision since the President of the EIB failed to explain his endorsement of the final investigation panel report.
Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission (Case T-554/20) (2020/C 399/54) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the explicit decision of the European Commission of 21 July 2020 rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/2083 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1);
— join the current procedure with the procedure registered under case number T-371/20;
— order the European Commission to pay EUR 3 000 to the applicant for the costs of the procedure, in application of Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the European Commission failed to state reasons in its application of the protection of the decision-making process exception.
2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since there is an overriding public interest to disclose the documents requested and that the documents requested should benefit from the wider access granted to ‘legislative documents’.
3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), since the exception stated in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be interpreted and applied all the more strictly when the information requested relates to emissions into the environment. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/39
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision cannot be based on the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual, since Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides that ‘If only parts of the requested document are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be released’.
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43). (2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
Action brought on 4 September 2020 — MF v eu-LISA (Case T-568/20) (2020/C 399/55) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: MF (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of 29 October 2019 terminating the applicant’s contract on the basis that a security clearance could not be issued to him — as such and insofar as it would also contain a decision to refuse access to EUCI;
— insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint;
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Plea in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the termination decision is illegal as a consequence of a violation by the defendant of Article 11(5)(b) of Commission decision and of the eu-LISA security Rules.
Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Ryanair v Commission (Case T-577/20) (2020/C 399/56) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission C 399/40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 14 October 2019 on State aid SA.55394 (2019/N) — Germany — Rescue aid to Condor (1), and
— order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging that the aid falls outside the material scope of the European Commission’s Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (2), because Condor’s difficulties are the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the Thomas Cook group.
2. Second plea in law, alleging that the rescue aid does not satisfy the compatibility condition that the aid should contribute to an objective of genuine common interest. The European Commission committed manifest errors of assessment, both regarding the needs of German independent tour operators and travel agencies and the alleged absence of aircraft capacity for the repatriation of stranded passengers during the IATA winter season which is marked by seasonal overcapacity.
3. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to review the satisfaction of the one time last time condition for rescue aid by the Thomas Cook group.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.
(1) OJ 2020 C 294, p. 3 (2) Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1
Action brought on 24 September 2020 — Polwax v Commission (Case T-585/20) (2020/C 399/57) Language of the case: Polish
Parties Applicant: Polwax S.A. (Jasło, Poland) (represented by: E. Nessmann, G. Duda and M. Smołka, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul the European Commission Decision of 14 July 2020, in Case M.9014 PKN Orlen/Grupa Lotos (‘the decision’);
— Order the European Commission to pay the costs. 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/41
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 infringement of the rules for appraisal of concentrations laid down in Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘Regulation No 139/2004’) (1), in so far as the Commission, by conditionally allowing PKN Orlen to acquire Grupa Lotos, failed to take into account the market for refined and dehydrated paraffin, paraffin waxes and paraffin-based products and did not assess the impact of the concentration on that market.
— In support of that plea, the applicant claims that during the course of the investigation, evidence was submitted to the Commission showing that the market for refined and dehydrated paraffin, paraffin waxes and paraffin-based products connected with the business activities of the parties involved in the concentration. The Commission’s statement of objections makes no reference to that market, which could indicate that the Commission did not take that market into account in the decision when assessing the effects of the concentration on competition.
2. Second plea in law alleging infringement of the rules for the appraisal of concentrations laid down in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 139/2004, in so far as the Commission did not take into account the fact that the acquisition by PKN Orlen of Grupa Lotos affects access to the supply of raw material for operators on the market for refined and dehydrated paraffin, paraffin waxes and paraffin-based products, and nor did it take into account the legal barriers to entry to that market arising as a result of the concentration.
— In support of that plea, the applicant claims that, after the acquisition of Grupa Lotos by PKN Orlen, all the raw material in the form of slack wax (heavy and light) along with the whole transport and logistic infrastructure in Poland, Lithuania and the Czech Republic would fall into the hands of one entity, so that that entity would be able to dictate price conditions and/or the conditions associated with the supply of the raw material not only to the entities currently operating on that market, but also to any entity that intends to enter that market in the future. The above difficulties in carrying out business activities would not be encountered by Orlen Południe S.A., the company controlled in its entirety by PKN Orlen.
3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules for the appraisal of concentrations laid down in Article 2(2) and (3) of Regulation No 139/2004, in so far the Commission allowed PKN Orlen to acquire Grupa Lotos, even though that control could significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it, in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position on the part of PKN Orlen.
— In support of that plea, the applicant claims that so far the only competitor for PKN Orlen on the market for the production and distribution of slack wax in Poland, the Czech Republic and Lithuania has been Grupa Lotos. After acquiring control PKN Orlen would have a monopoly.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 139/2004, in so far as the Commission has not informed the Member State that the acquisition by PKN Orlen of Grupa Lotos threatens to have a significant effect on competition in the market for refined and dehydrated paraffin, paraffin waxes and paraffin-based products, which has the characteristics of a distinct market on Polish territory.
— The applicant submits that plea in the alternative in the event that it is held that the market for refined and dehydrated paraffin, paraffin waxes and paraffin-based products has no Community-wide coverage. In that situation, in the applicant’s view that market satisfies the requirements for recognition as a distinct market.
(1) OJ L 24 2004, p. 1. C 399/42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Action brought on 25 September 2020 — Clariant and Clariant International v Commission (Case T-590/20) (2020/C 399/58) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicants: Clariant AG (Muttenz, Switzerland), Clariant International AG (Muttenz) (represented by: F. Montag and M. Dreher, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2020) 4817 final of 14 July 2020 (Case AT.40410 — Ethylene), in so far as it relates to the imposition of a fine amount in excess of EUR 94 405 800;
— in eventu, reduce the fine in the amount of EUR 155 769 000 imposed on the applicants according to Article 2(c) of the Commission Decision C(2020) 4817 final of 14 July 2020, to a proportionate amount
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003 and the principles of proportionality and sound administration by failure to exercise discretion, in so far as the Commission mechanically applied a fine increase on the grounds of repeated infringement based on a set of (alleged) standard criteria without considering the circumstances of the present case.
2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission mechanically applied a fine increase under Point 37 of the Fining Guidelines without considering the circumstances of the present case and failed to exercise its discretion.
3. Third plea in law, requesting the Court to reduce the amount of the fine to a proportionate level in exercising its unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 31 of Regulation 1/2003.
Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect) (Case T-616/20) (2020/C 399/59) Language of the case: English
Parties Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and C. Elkemann, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Murcia, Spain) 23.11.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/43
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect in colours white, red and black — Application for registration No 15 385 719)
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2020 in Case R 424/2020-5
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the contested decision;
— order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs before the EUIPO.
Pleas in law — Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
— Infringement of Article 91(1) first sentence of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
— Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
— Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 9 October 2020 — Aldi v EUIPO (Cachet) (Case T-622/20) (2020/C 399/60) Language of the case: German
Parties Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Cachet — Application for registration No 18 092 827
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2020 in Case R 452/2020-4 C 399/44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.11.2020
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the contested decision in so far as it confirmed rejection of the application for registration in respect of the goods in Class 5 ‘Veterinary preparations; Medical preparations; Pharmaceutical products; Sanitary preparations for medical purposes; Dietetic food and substances adapted for medical or veterinary use, food supplements for human beings and animals’ and dismissed the appeal; — order EUIPO to pay the costs.
Pleas in law — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition) ISSN 1725-2423 (paper edition)
EN