Judicial activity

Legislation passed by the Flemish Region (Belgium) imposed an obligation to stun animals prior to slaughter. With ritual slaughter being affected, Jewish and Muslim associations sought the annulment of that legislation. In a reference for a preliminary ruling by a Belgian court, the Court of Justice held that the legislation at issue, which does not preclude the use of reversible stunning which cannot result in the animal’s death, and which does not hinder the putting into circulation of products of animal origin derived from animals which have undergone ritual slaughter, where those products originate outside the Flemish Region, allows a fair balance to be struck between freedom of religion, guaranteed by the Charter, and animal welfare, as set out in the TFEU (see section ‘Consumer protection’). Judgment of 17 December 2020, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, C-336/19

In the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the Court of Justice held that the restrictions imposed by Hungary on the financing of civil organisations by persons established outside that Member State do not comply with EU law. In particular, those restrictions run contrary to the obligations on Member States not only in respect of the free movement of capital laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, but also with regard to provisions of the Charter on the right to freedom of association, the right to respect for private and family life, and the right to the protection of personal data (see section ‘The protection of personal data’). Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary (Transparency of associations), C-78/18

In another action for failure to fulfil obligations concerning Hungary, the Court of Justice analysed, in the light of the Charter, the national law on higher education. That law made the exercise, in Hungary, of teaching activities leading to a qualification by higher education institutions situated outside the European Economic Area (EEA) subject to the existence of an international treaty between Hungary and the third country in which the institution concerned had its seat and to the requirement that the institution carried out education activities in the State of origin. The Court of Justice pointed out that such conditions are contrary to academic freedom, the freedom to found higher education institutions and the freedom to conduct a business. Judgment of 6 October 2020, Commission v Hungary (Higher education), C-66/18

An urgent reference for a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice concerned the principle of equal treatment between nationals and citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA). The Court of Justice stated that the Charter applies when a Member State (in the present case, Croatia) is required to rule on an extradition request by a third State (Russia) concerning a national of a State of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) (Iceland). Consequently, the Member State that receives an extradition request must verify that that national will not be subject to the death penalty, torture, or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the third State making the extradition request. Judgment of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, C-897/19 PPU

In the context of two urgent references for a preliminary ruling relating to systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning judicial independence in Poland, the Court of Justice held that the execution of a European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by a Polish judicial authority can be refused only if, having regard to the individual situation of the person concerned, the nature of the offence in question and the factual context in which that EAW has been issued, there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will run a real risk of breach of his or her right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Charter, once he or she is surrendered to those authorities. Judgment of 17 December 2020, Openbaar Ministerie, C-354/20 PPU and Others

The Court of Justice declared that two requests for a preliminary ruling concerning Polish legislation from 2017 establishing a disciplinary procedure regime for judges were inadmissible. However, it stated that the fact that national judges made requests for a preliminary ruling which turned out to be inadmissible cannot lead to disciplinary proceedings being brought against them. The Court observed that provisions of national law which expose national judges to disciplinary proceedings as a result of the fact that they submitted a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling cannot be permitted. Not being exposed to disciplinary proceedings or measures for that reason also constitutes a guarantee essential to the independence of the judiciary. Judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny, C-558/18 and C 563/18

Furthermore, the Court of Justice held that Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law in the area of procedures for granting international protection and returning illegally staying third-country nationals. In particular, restricting access to the international protection procedure, unlawfully detaining applicants for that protection in transit zones and moving illegally staying third-country nationals to a border area, without observing the guarantees surrounding a return procedure, constitute infringements of EU law. Judgment of 17 December 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-808/18

In the context of three actions for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission against Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the Court of Justice held that, by refusing to comply with the temporary mechanism for the relocation of applicants for international protection, those three Member States had failed to fulfil their obligations under EU law. Those Member States can rely neither on the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security, nor on the alleged malfunctioning of the relocation mechanism to avoid, in general terms, implementing that mechanism. Judgment of 2 April 2020, Commission v Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, C-715/17 and Others

So far as concerns data processing, the Court of Justice confirmed that EU law precludes, in principle, national legislation requiring providers of electronic communications services to forward users’ traffic data and location data to a public authority or to retain such data in a general or indiscriminate way for the purpose of combating criminal offences and crime. It stated, however, that exceptions are possible in situations where there are serious threats to national security or in order to combat serious crime or to prevent serious threats to public security. Judgments of 6 October 2020, Privacy International and La Quadrature du Net and Others, C-623/17 and C-511/18 and Others

Lastly, the Court of Justice found that Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law in having imposed restrictions on the financing of civil organisations by persons established outside that Member State. A Hungarian law imposes, subject to penalties, obligations of registration, declaration and publication on civil society organisations receiving support from abroad exceeding a certain threshold. The Court of Justice considered that such restrictions are discriminatory and run contrary to the free movement of capital and freedom of association, as well as the principles of respect for private life (see section ‘A Union based on the value of the human person and on the rule of law’) and protection of personal data. Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary (Transparency of associations), C-78/18

In cases concerning furnished accommodation offered for rent on the Airbnb website, the Court of Justice held that national legislation making the repeated short-term letting of accommodation to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there subject to authorisation is consistent with EU law. The Court of Justice considered that combating the long-term rental housing shortage constitutes an overriding reason relating to the public interest justifying such legislation. Judgment of 22 September 2020, Cali Apartments, C-724/18 and Others

With regard to unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Court of Justice considered that the contractual term in mortgage loan agreements providing for the application of a variable interest rate based on a reference index applied by national savings banks is an unfair term unless it is plain and intelligible. If that term is found to be unfair, national courts may replace that index with other criteria provided for by law in order to protect the consumer from particularly unfavourable consequences, such as the annulment of the loan agreement. Judgment of 3 March 2020, Gómez del Moral Guasch, C-125/18

The Court of Justice also held that, whilst national legislation may provide for a time limit for an action for reimbursement initiated by the consumer, that time limit must not be less favourable than that concerning similar actions or render impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the consumer’s rights. Judgment of 9 July 2020, Raiffeisen Bank, C-698/18 and Others

So far as concerns cosmetic product labelling, the Court of Justice held that information as to the ‘function’ which must appear on the product’s container and its packaging must inform consumers clearly as to that product’s purpose and method of use. Information concerning the particular precautions to be observed when using that product, its function and its ingredients may not appear in a company catalogue referred to by the symbol of a hand with an open book placed on the container or the packaging. Judgment of 17 December 2020, A.M. v E.M., C-667/19

As for consumer and environmental protection, the Court of Justice held that a car manufacturer cannot equip its vehicles with software capable of distorting the results of type-approval tests for emissions of gaseous pollutants. Consumers who have suffered damage by purchasing unlawfully manipulated vehicles can bring legal proceedings against the motor vehicle manufacturer before the courts of the Member State in which the vehicles were sold to them. The damage suffered by the purchaser occurs in the Member State in which he or she purchases the vehicle for a price higher than its actual value. Judgment of 17 December 2020, CLCV and Others, C-693/18 / Judgment of 9 July 2020, Verein für Konsumenteninformation, C-343/19

Better consumer and environmental protection also follows from the judgment of the General Court rejecting the request of PlasticsEurope, an international association which represents and defends the interests of undertakings that manufacture and import plastic products, and upholding the decision of the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to which bisphenol A is subject to authorisation as a substance with endocrine disrupting properties that may have serious effects on the environment. Judgment of 16 December 2020, PlasticsEurope, T-207/18

Two judgments delivered in 2020 concern meat consumption. The Court of Justice held, in one of those judgments, that EU law does not preclude national legislation imposing an obligation to stun animals prior to slaughter (see section ‘A Union based on the value of the human person and on the rule of law’). In the other judgment, the General Court dismissed the action brought by two of the largest producers and distributors of meat and meat products in the world seeking the annulment of the regulation prohibiting, for public health reasons, the export to the European Union of certain products of animal origin. In the circumstances of that case, the Brazilian authorities had not provided, in respect of certain national establishments, guarantees concerning compliance with public health rules required by EU law. Judgment of 17 December 2020, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België, C-336/19 / Judgment of 8 July 2020, BRF and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos, T-429/18

A dispute between the air carrier TAP and a passenger arose concerning the compensation of that passenger for a delay in arrival of nearly 24 hours of a flight from Fortaleza (Brazil) to Oslo (Norway) via Lisbon (Portugal). The delay to the flight was caused by the fact that, on an earlier flight, the aircraft that operated the Lisbon-Oslo flight had been re-routed to disembark a passenger who had physically assaulted others. The Court of Justice held that the unruly behaviour of an air passenger may exempt the carrier from its obligation to pay compensation for the cancellation or long delay of the flight concerned or of a subsequent flight operated by that carrier using the same aircraft. Judgment of 11 June 2020, Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, C-74/19

A Kazakh passenger in Larnaca (Cyprus) was denied boarding of a flight operated by the Romanian air carrier Blue Air to Bucharest (Romania). The denied boarding was based on the allegedly inadequate nature of the passenger’s travel documentation. In a reference for a preliminary ruling from a Cypriot court, the Court of Justice considered that it is not for the air carrier to decide definitively on the inadequate nature of such documentation and that, in the event of challenge by that passenger, it is for the competent court to assess whether his denied boarding was reasonably justified or not. If not, the passenger is entitled to compensation and assistance provided for by EU law. Judgment of 30 April 2020, Blue Air, C-584/18

The Italian Competition and Market Authority criticised Ryanair for having published on the internet prices for air services that did not indicate, from the first time that they were shown, certain fundamental elements. In answer to questions on this point, the Court of Justice held that air carriers must indicate, from the first time their price offers are published on the internet and from the initial offer, the VAT on domestic flights, the fees charged for paying by credit card and the check-in fees payable where no method of checking-in free of charge is offered as an alternative. Judgment of 23 April 2020, Ryanair, C-28/19

In answer to questions referred by the Court of Appeal, Helsinki (Finland), the Court of Justice considered that an air passenger who has agreed to travel on an alternative flight, where the air carrier of the re-routing flight is the same as that of the cancelled flight, is entitled to compensation for a delay in the re-routing flight. Judgment of 12 March 2020, Finnair, C-832/18

In proceedings between a German student residing in France and the Land Rhineland-Palatinate where she attends secondary school, the Court of Justice held that making the Land Rhineland- Palatinate reimbursement of school transport costs subject to residence in the Land concerned constitutes indirect discrimination against cross-border workers and their families which, as a rule, is prohibited by EU law. In the case of school transport in the Land Rhineland-Palatinate, such a residence requirement is not justified by an overriding reason in the public interest relating to the organisation of the school system. Judgment of 2 April 2020, Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße v PF and Others, C-830/18

The Court of Justice dismissed the actions brought by Hungary and Poland seeking annulment of the directive strengthening the rights of posted workers. It stated that given, in particular, the changes in the internal market following the successive enlargements of the European Union, the EU legislature could undertake a reassessment of the interests of undertakings taking advantage of the freedom to provide services and the interests of their workers posted to a host Member State, in order to ensure that the freedom to provide services is exercised by those undertakings and undertakings established in the host Member State on a level playing field. Judgments of 8 December 2020, Hungary and Poland v Parliament and Council, C-620 and 626/18

In a case concerning a transport undertaking from the Netherlands using drivers coming from Germany and Hungary, the Court of Justice held that the directive concerning the posting of workers is, in principle, applicable to road transport, particularly international road transport. Consequently, the collective agreements of the host Member State apply to workers posted to the territory of that Member State. However, the fact that a driver working in international road transport, who has been hired out by an undertaking established in the host Member State, receives the instructions relating to his or her tasks and starts or finishes them in the territory of that Member State, is not sufficient in itself to consider that that driver has been posted to the territory of that Member State. Judgment of 1 December 2020, Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging, C-815/18

The Spanish airline Vueling was convicted, in criminal proceedings, on the basis of a finding of social fraud in France due to the affiliation of its flying personnel, posted to the Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport at Roissy, to the Spanish social security system rather than the French social security system. According to the Court of Justice, the French civil courts, before which claims for compensation had been brought, cannot be bound by that definitive finding of fraud when, in breach of EU law, that finding has not been preceded by a dialogue with the Spanish institution, allowing it to re-examine the documents available to it and, where appropriate, declare to be invalid or withdraw the certificates attesting to the affiliation of workers to Spanish legislation. Judgment of 2 April 2020, CRPNPAC and Vueling Airlines, C-370/17 and Others

As regards the entitlement to paid annual leave, the Court of Justice stated that a worker dismissed unlawfully then reinstated as an employee is entitled to paid annual leave for the period between the two events even if, during that period, he or she has not actually worked. However, where, during that period, a worker has taken new employment, he or she will be able to claim the entitlement corresponding to the period during which he or she has been in that employment only from the new employer. Judgment of 25 June 2020, Varhoven kasatsionen sad na Republika Bulgaria and Iccrea Banca, C-762/18 and Others

The Court of Justice was also called upon to review the lawfulness of the provision of State resources in favour of two health insurance bodies operating under Slovak State supervision in the context of a compulsory health insurance scheme. It found that, despite the existence of a certain amount of competition between public and private bodies in the context of the scheme, it pursued a social objective and applied the principle of solidarity. Consequently, it held, upholding the decision of the Commission, that the case of the two health insurance bodies in question did not fall within the rules of EU law on State aid. Judgment of 11 June 2020, Commission and Slovakia v Dôvera zdravotná poistʼovňa, C-262/18 P and Others

Similarly, the Court of Justice examined the nature of the subsidies that France had granted, in the form of a reduction in employees’ contributions, to fishermen and fish farmers affected by the wreck of the tanker Erika and by the violent storms in 1999. It found that the reduction related to charges covered by employees’ contributions not employers’ contributions. Consequently, the reduction conferred no advantage on fisheries undertakings and, therefore, EU State aid rules, which concern only undertakings, did not apply. The Court of Justice thus ruled that the Commission’s decision ordering France to recover the subsidies was invalid in part. Judgment of 17 September 2020, Ministre de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation v Compagnie des pêches de Saint-Malo, C-212/19

By contrast, the Court of Justice ordered Italy to pay a lump sum of €7.5 million and a daily penalty payment of €80 000 for failing to recover aid – of a total amount of approximately €13.7 million – unlawfully granted to the hotel industry in Sardinia. Although, in 2008, the Commission ordered Italy to recover the aid and that, in 2012, the Court of Justice found that Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations in that regard, that Member State still did not comply with its obligation to recover the aid at issue. The Commission then brought a second action for failure to fulfil obligations to impose pecuniary penalties against Italy. That action was upheld by the Court of Justice. Judgment of 12 March 2020, Commission v Italy, C-576/18

As for the General Court, it annulled the decision taken by the Commission finding that the Irish tax rulings in favour of Apple constituted State aid. According to the Commission, Ireland had granted Apple €13 billion in unlawful tax advantages, which therefore had to be recovered by the Member State from the recipient. However, the General Court considered that the Commission did not succeed in showing to the requisite legal standard that the tax rulings in question granted Apple a selective economic advantage and constituted State aid. Judgment of 15 July 2020, Ireland v Commission and Apple Sales International, T-778/16 and Others

Similarly, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision finding aid measures implemented by the Autonomous Community of Valencia (Spain) in favour of the Spanish football clubs Valencia CF and Elche CF to be unlawful. According to the Commission, the aid measures took the form of guarantees to associations linked to the football clubs in question intended to cover the bank loans taken out by those associations in order to participate in the increase in the capital of the club to which they were respectively linked. However, the General Court considered that the Commission’s decision was vitiated by a number of errors concerning, in particular, the existence of comparable guarantees on the market. Judgments of 12 March 2020, Valencia Club de Fútbol and Elche Club de Fútbol, T-732/16 and T-901/16

By contrast, the General Court dismissed the action against the Commission decision declaring illegal the aid from the Autonomous Region of Sardinia to several airlines serving Sardinia. The aid at issue, seeking to improve the island’s air service and promote it as a touristic destination, was made available to beneficiaries through the operators of the main Sardinian airports. The General Court confirmed that the aid had not been granted to those operators, but to the airlines concerned, which must therefore repay it. Judgments of 13 May 2020, Volotea, Germanwings and easyJet, T-607/17, T-716/17 and T-8/18

The General Court also upheld the decision taken by the Commission according to which the Spanish tax system applicable to certain finance lease agreements entered into by shipyards with economic interest groupings (EIGs) constituted, as an investment vehicle for granting tax advantages, a State aid scheme in favour of members of the EIGs in question. According to the Commission, that scheme, under which a shipping company acquires a vessel not directly from a shipyard but through an EIG, was partially incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it also allowed shipping companies to benefit from a 20-30% price reduction when purchasing ships constructed by Spanish shipyards. Judgment of 23 September 2020, Spain v Commission, T-515/13 RENV and Others

Lastly, the General Court upheld the Commission's decision by which it found that the unlimited public guarantee granted by France to IFP Énergies nouvelles (IFPEN), a publicly owned establishment entrusted with research and development in the fields of energy, partially constituted State aid. The General Court considered that IFPEN and France were unable to rebut the presumption that the grant of such a guarantee conferred an economic advantage on IFPEN vis-à-vis its competitors. Judgment of 5 October 2020, France v Commission and Others, T-479/11 RENV and Others

The General Court confirmed the existence, established by the Commission, of a cartel in the smart card chip sector between several undertakings that had coordinated their pricing policy. The General Court ordered, however, that the fine imposed by the Commission, inter alia on Infineon, be reduced given the limited number of the anticompetitive contacts which Infineon had had with its competitors and the insufficient evidence concerning one of the anticompetitive contacts identified by the Commission. Judgment of 8 July 2020, Infineon Technologies, T-758/14 RENV

For the first time, the General Court had occasion to review the lawfulness of rules adopted by an international sports federation. The General Court held that the rules of the International Skating Union distorted free competition by providing for penalties for athletes taking part in speed skating events not recognised by it. The General Court considered that the restrictions deriving from the pre-authorisation system provided for by the rules at issue could not be justified by the objective of protecting the integrity of the sport. Judgment of 16 December 2020, International Skating Union, T-93/18

The General Court upheld the Commission’s decision finding that Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (LG), the national railway company of Lithuania, abused its dominant position on the Lithuanian rail freight market. LG had concluded a rail freight agreement with Orlen for the purpose of transporting oil products to Western Europe. Following a dispute with LG, Orlen wished to entrust the transport of its products to the national railway company of Latvia. By removing the track which ran from the place of departure of its goods, in Lithuania, to Latvia, LG prevented the rival Latvian company from concluding the agreement with Orlen. Such conduct was found to constitute abuse of a dominant position. Judgment of 18 November 2020, Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB, T-814/17

In proceedings between a company operating a hotel in Germany and Booking.com BV, a company governed by Netherlands law operating an accommodation booking platform, the Court of Justice, in a reference for a preliminary ruling from a German court, held that a hotel using the platform Booking.com may bring proceedings against Booking.com before a court of the Member State in which that hotel is established in order to bring to an end a possible abuse of a dominant position. Booking.com claimed that the action against it should be brought before a court of the Member State in which it has its seat. The Court of Justice rejected that argument. Judgment of 24 November 2020, Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG v Booking.com BV., C-59/19

A dominant position on the electronic communications and media markets may pose a risk to pluralism of information. That finding was the basis of Italian legislation prohibiting undertakings holding a significant position in the electronic communications sector from acquiring a significant economic dimension in the media sector. In the context of the hostile acquisition campaign for shares in the Italian company Mediaset launched by the French company Vivendi and the proceedings that followed, the Court of Justice held, however, that such legislation constitutes a prohibited impediment to the right of establishment when it does not have the aim of safeguarding pluralism of information. Judgment of 3 September 2020, Vivendi SA, C-719/1

With regard to concentrations between undertakings, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision to block the proposed acquisition of Telefónica UK by Hutchinson 3G UK. It held that the Commission had not demonstrated that such an acquisition would establish a significant impediment to effective competition on the UK mobile telephony market. It also noted that the Commission had not demonstrated that such an operation would lead to an increase in prices for services and a reduction in their quality. Judgment of 28 May 2020, CK Telecoms UK Investments, T-399/16

In another Hungarian case, the Court of Justice held that the special taxes levied in Hungary on the turnover of telecommunications operators and of undertakings in the retail trade sector are compatible with EU law. Those undertakings, which are predominately owned by persons (natural or legal) of other Member States, achieve the highest turnover in the Hungarian markets concerned and therefore bear much of those special taxes. The Court of Justice nevertheless held that that fact reflects the economic reality of those markets and does not constitute discrimination against those undertakings. Judgments of 3 March 2020, Vodafone Magyarország and Tesco-Global Áruházak, C-75/18 and C-323/18

In 2020, the General Court delivered its first four judgments concerning decisions of the European Central Bank (ECB) imposing pecuniary penalties as part of its prudential supervision of credit institutions. It thus annulled in part three decisions on the basis that inadequate reasons were given for those decisions. No details were provided of the methodology applied by the ECB in determining the amount of the penalties imposed. Judgments of 8 July 2020, VQ v ECB, T-203/18, T-576/18, T-577/18, T-578/18

As for distinctive character, which is essential for the validity of a mark, the General Court pointed out that a shape, the registration of which as a three-dimensional mark has been applied for, is devoid of distinctive character where it does not depart significantly from the norms and customs of the sector concerned. In the case of a shoe lace, it stated that the novelty of its shape and the beauty of its design are not sufficient, on their own, to find that a distinctive character exists. The function of a trade mark is to indicate the commercial origin of the product and thus to enable consumers to identify certain goods as being associated with a certain undertaking. Judgment of 5 February 2020, Hickies, T-573/18

In the same vein, but in the case of a figurative mark, the General Court observed that the pattern of a lion’s head encircled by chains constitutes a typical and familiar representation for buttons and jewellery and is therefore devoid of distinctive character in respect of those goods. By contrast, in another case, the General Court criticised EUIPO for failing to take account of certain evidence for the purposes of assessing the distinctive character, acquired through use, of a mark consisting of a chequerboard pattern for bags and travelling bags. Judgments of 5 February 2020, Pierre Balmain, T-331/19 and T-332/19 / Judgment of 10 June 2020, Louis Vuitton Malletier, T-105/19

A word mark is also devoid of distinctive character if it is limited to describing a characteristic of a product for which registration is sought. The General Court considered that the word mark WAVE for aquarium lights may have distinctive character since the word ‘wave’ does not describe a characteristic of those lights. Judgment of 23 September 2020, Tetra GmbH, T-869/19

It is precisely in the light of the weak distinctiveness of two signs representing a horn to identify postal services, that the General Court excluded a likelihood of confusion between them. The representation of a post horn, often on a yellow background, is traditionally used by national postal operators throughout the European Union. Therefore, the public will not associate the post horn or the colour yellow with a particular company but, more generally, with several national postal operators. Judgment of 11 November 2020, Deutsche Post, T-25/20

Again with regard to the likelihood of confusion between two marks, but this time in respect of sports equipment and clothing, the Court of Justice held that the reputation of the footballer Lionel Messi is likely to counteract any likelihood of confusion between his mark MESSI and the earlier mark MASSI belonging to a Spanish company. Judgment of 17 September 2020, Messi, C-449/18 and Others

In another case concerning the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the General Court also pointed out that the presence of the same word in two marks (in this case, the word ‘Teruel’ in the marks AIRESANO BLACK El IBERICO DE TERUEL and JAMON DE TERUEL CONSEJO REGULADOR DE LA DENOMINACION DE ORIGEN) is not sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion. Judgment of 28 May 2020, Consejo Regulador, T-696/18

As regards the criterion of similarity between two marks, the General Court found that the word mark LOTTOLAND, registered in respect of industrial services, has a high degree of similarity with the earlier figurative marks LOTTO, registered in respect of gambling games. However, it stated that there was no link between the two marks in the light, in particular, of the different nature of the services covered by the marks at issue and of the relevant publics. In the absence of such a link, the use of the mark LOTTOLAND would not take unfair advantage of, and would also not be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier marks. Judgment of 11 November 2020, Lottoland, T-820/19

It sometimes happens that a dispute concerning distinctive signs is not between individuals or undertakings but Member States, as in the dispute concerning the use of the word ‘Teran’ for a wine grape variety used in Slovenia and Croatia. After the accession of Slovenia to the European Union in 2004, that designation was recognised as a protected designation of origin (PDO). In 2017, a regulation established that the word ‘Teran’ could also be used, as from the accession of Croatia to the European Union in 2013, for certain Croatian wines. The General Court dismissed Slovenia’s action for annulment of that regulation which enables the PDOs to co-exist peacefully without infringing the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations. Judgment of 9 September 2020, Slovenia v Commission, T-626/17

The General Court dismissed an action seeking a declaration that the European Council unlawfully refused to exclude the Czech Prime Minister, on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest, from the meetings of that institution concerning the adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework of the European Union 2021/2027. The General Court considered that the Member States alone are competent to determine, as between their Heads of State or Government respectively, which of those persons is to represent them at European Council meetings and to establish the grounds which could lead to it being impossible for one of those persons to represent them at that institution’s meetings. Order of 17 July 2020, Wagenknecht, T-715/19

Mr Shindler and other nationals of the United Kingdom are long-term residents of Italy and France. As a result, they were not allowed to participate in either the Brexit referendum or the parliamentary elections in 2017, which played a determining role in the maintenance of their status as Union citizens. They therefore brought an action for ‘failure to act’ against the Commission before the General Court on account of the Commission’s ‘unlawful failure to preserve European citizenship’. The General Court dismissed the action and held that the Commission lacks the competence to adopt a binding act intended to maintain, as from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the European citizenship of certain nationals of the United Kingdom. Order of 14 July 2020, Shindler, T-627/19