ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T-545/11 RENV) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the first authorisation of the placing on the market of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 - Directive 91/414/EEC))

(2019/C 35/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, P. Ondrůšek and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, L. Swedenborg and F. Bergius, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and D. Klebs, acting as Agents), European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) (Brussels) and Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA) (Brussels) (represented by: I. Antypas and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers), CropLife International AISBL (CLI) (Brussels) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier, lawyers, and D. Abrahams, Barrister), CropLife America Inc. (Washington, DC, United States), National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America (NAM) (Washington) and America Chemistry Council Inc. (ACC) (Washington) (represented initially by: M. Abenhaïm and K. Nordlander, lawyers, subsequently by K. Nordlander, lawyer, and M. Zdzieborska, Solicitor, and finally by K. Nordlander and Y.-A. Benizri, lawyers, and M. Zdzieborska, Solicitor), and European Crop Care Association (ECCA) (Brussels) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 10 August 2011 refusing access to volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report issued by the Federal Republic of Germany, as rapporteur Member State for the active substance ‘glyphosate’, under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO

(Case T-556/11) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Software development and maintenance services - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Classification of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Grounds for exclusion - Conflict of interest - Equal treatment - Duty of diligence - Award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons - Non-contractual liability - Loss of opportunity))

(2016/C 211/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis and N. Theologou, subsequently by I. Ampazis, and lastly by M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, and subsequently by M. Bambara, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of the decision of EUIPO notified by letter of 11 August 2011 and adopted in tendering procedure AO/029/10 entitled ‘Software development and maintenance services’ rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg and the other related decisions of EUIPO adopted in the context of that procedure, including those awarding the contract to other tenderers, and, second, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), notified by letter of 11 August 2011 and adopted in tendering procedure AO/029/10 entitled ‘Software development and maintenance services’, rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and the other related decisions of EUIPO adopted in the context of that procedure, including those awarding the contract to three other tenderers as successful tenderers ranked first to third in the ‘cascade’ procedure;

2. Orders EUIPO to compensate European Dynamics Luxembourg for the damage incurred as a result of the loss of opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as, at the very least, the third contractor in the cascade procedure;

3. Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount, in figures, of compensation arrived at by agreement;

4. Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall forward to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures;

5. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/19

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2013 — FunFactory v OHIM (Vibrator)

(Case T-137/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional trade mark - Vibrator - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - The first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - The second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 63/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: FunFactory GmbH (Brême, Germany) (represented by: K.-D. Franzen, laywer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 1436/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign representing a vibrator.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders FunFactory GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 157, 2.6. 2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/27

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — ABC-One v OHMI (SLIM BELLY)

(Case T-61/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SLIM BELLY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 171/53

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (Villach St Magdalen, Austria) (represented by: S. Merz, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2011 (Case R 1077/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SLIM BELLY as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
1.

Annuls the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote AY to AST grade 9 pursuant to the 2010 promotion procedure and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all of the costs (points 1 and 4 of the operative part of that judgment).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/9

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2013 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts)

(Case T-3/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark MEMBER OF €e euro experts - Absolute ground for refusal - Symbols of the European Union and its spheres of activity - Euro symbol - Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 245/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Heinrich Kreyenberg (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Commission

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2011 (Case R 1804/2010-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between the European Commission and Mr Heinrich Kreyenberg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Heinrich Kreyenberg to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 15/14

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)

(Case T-34/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark HERBA SHINE - Earlier national, Community and international word marks Herbacin - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Statement of reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2014/C 15/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Herbacin cosmetic GmbH (Wutha-Farnroda, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1), relating to an opposition procedure between Herbacin cosmetic GmbH and Laboratoire Garnier et Cie.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1);

2. Orders the OHIM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/11

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Beninca v Commission

(Case T-561/12) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document drawn up by the Commission in the context of the merger between Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

2013/C 359/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jürgen Beninca (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 October 2012 refusing access to a memorandum from the head of the unit responsible for competition matters at the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Mr. Jürgen Beninca to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/36

Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — LaserSoft Imaging v OHIM (WorkflowPilot)

(Case T-475/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark WorkflowPilot - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)

2014/C 52/68

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LaserSoft Imaging AG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: J. Hunnekuhl, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 480/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark WorkflowPilot as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LaserSoft Imaging AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
1.

Orders the European Commission to pay to ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias the sums of which the payment was suspended on the basis of the third indent of point II.5(3)(d) of the general conditions annexed to the grant agreements relating to the Oasis and Perform projects, concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2007-2013), without such payment prejudicing the eligibility of the expenses declared by ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias or the implementation of the findings of final audit report 11-INFS-0035 by the Commission. The amount of the sums to be paid shall be inside the limits of the balance of the financial aid available at the time of the suspension of the payments and those sums must be increased by late-payment interest which shall start to run, in respect of each period, on expiry of the 105-day time-limit for payment following receipt of the corresponding reports by the Commission. The interest rate applicable shall be that in force on the first day of the month in which the payment fell due, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union, Series C;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/29

Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2014 — HP Health Clubs Iberia v OHIM — Shiseido (ZENSATIONS)

(Case T-416/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ZENSATIONS - Earlier Community word mark ZEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Admissibility of the applicant’s form of order - Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 112/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: HP Health Clubs Iberia (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Serrat Viñas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Shiseido Company Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: B. Moreau-Margotin, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2012 (Case R 2212/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Shiseido Company Ltd and HP Health Clubs Iberia S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Dismisses the heads of claims of Shiseido Company Ltd other than that essentially seeking the dismissal of the action as manifestly inadmissible.

3. Orders HP Health Clubs Iberia S.A. to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM.)

4. Orders Shiseido Company Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/8

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Free v OHIM — Noble Gaming (FREEVOLUTION TM)

(Case T-127/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FREEVOLUTION TM - Earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX and earlier national word marks FREE and FREE MOBILE - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 78/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Free SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Meglar, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Noble Gaming Ltd (Prague, Czech Republic)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2011 (Case R 2326/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Noble Gaming Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Free SAS to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/38

Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament

(Case T-488/12) (1)

((Public works contracts - Tender procedure - Work for the renovation and extension of the Eastman building in Brussels - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Notification of the evaluation committee’s report - Duty to state reasons))

2014/C 175/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cit Blaton SA (CITEB) (Schaerbeek, Belgium); and Belgo-Metal (Wetteren, Belgium) (represented by: R. Simar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Poilvache and L. Fedel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2012 rejecting the tender made by the applicants in response to a contract notice of 19 May 2012, published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2012/S 92-1563620) under reference NINLO.AO-2012-005-BRU-UPIB-02, concerning the carrying out of work for the renovation and extension of the Eastman building in Brussels (Belgium) and awarding that contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cit Blaton SA (CITEB) and Belgo-Metal to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/19

Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2014 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA MOBILE)

(Case T-554/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AAVA MOBILE - Earlier Community word mark JAVA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No likelihood of association - Link between the signs - Reputation - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 151/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oracle America, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Graf and T. Heydn, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by F. Mattina, and subsequently by P. Bullock, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aava Mobile Oy (Oulu, Finland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1205/2011-2) of 9 October 2012, concerning opposition proceedings between Oracle Amercia, Inc. and Aava Mobile Oy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Oracle America, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/11

Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Klingel v OHIM — Develey (JUNGBORN)

(Case T-401/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark JUNGBORN - Earlier national word mark BORN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 245/14

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Zeiher, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG (Unterhaching, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2012 (Case R 936/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG and Robert Klingel OHG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Robert Klingel OHG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/27

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Commission v Macchia

(Case T-368/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision of non-renewal - Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal - First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Concept of ‘interests of the service’ - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita - Principle of the right to be heard))

2014/C 212/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Luigi Macchia (Varese, Italy) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission, in so far as it annulled the decision of the Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 12 August 2010 rejecting the request for an extension of Luigi Macchia’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, consequently, rejected as premature the request for Mr Macchia to be reintegrated within OLAF and the application for compensation in respect of the material harm suffered;

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/38

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Łaszkiewicz v OHIM — Capital Safety Group EMEA (PROTEKT)

(Case T-576/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark PROTEKT - Earlier Community word marks PROTECTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/46

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Capital Safety Group EMEA SAS (Carros, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2012 (Case R 700/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Capital Safety Group EMEA SAS and Mr Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.