ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EU institutions – Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Regulation 2018/1725 – Scope – Concept of personal data – Press release from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) providing direct and indirect identification details in respect of the person concerned – Impossible to identify that person on the sole basis of the press release or by means that are reasonably likely to be used – Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 883/2013 and No 2018/1725, Recital 16 and Arts 2(1) and 3(1))

(see paras 32, 33, 44-49, 53-55, 57, 68, 91, 92)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76)

(see para. 74)
3.

Officials – Competitions – Selection board – Composition – Sufficient stability to ensure equal treatment of candidates, consistent marking and objectivity of the assessment – Chairperson of the selection board present only at the beginning of each interview at the assessment centre – Whether permissible (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 3) (see paras 53-56)
Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Circumvention – Opening of an investigation – Commission’s obligation to inform interested parties – Scope – Extension of the investigation to related companies not mentioned by the regulation initiating an investigation – Whether permissible – Infringement of the rights of defence and of the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectations – None

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 5(10) and (11) and 13(3))

(see paras 55-60, 69-78, 81-92, 98-104, 111-129, 232-244, 247, 248, 251, 252)
36

It should be observed, at the outset, that according to settled case-law, the statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure, in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for it and to enable the competent court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 296 must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (see judgment of 8 September 2011, Commission v Netherlands, C‑279/08 P, EU:C:2011:551, paragraph 125 and the case-law cited).
36

In order to reach the conclusion set out in paragraph 29 of the contested decision, first, the Board of Appeal stated that the beverages referred to as ‘bottled drinking water; mineral water (non-medicated -); mineral water [beverages]’ and some of the goods on which the opposition was based, namely ‘alcoholic beverages (except beer)’, were liquids intended for human consumption. As a result, they were all of the same nature (see paragraph 22 of the contested decision). Next, according to the Board of Appeal, some of the goods covered by the term ‘alcoholic beverages (except beer)’ are therefore, in part, goods which serve above all to quench thirst and which are therefore, to a certain extent, in competition (see paragraph 23 of the contested decision). Moreover, according to the Board of Appeal, the fact that the goods in question are alcoholic or non-alcoholic, although relevant, cannot be considered decisive in determining whether, in the mind of the relevant public, the goods in question may have the same or related commercial origin (see paragraph 25 of the contested decision). It is true that the alcoholic beverages covered by the earlier mark are generally consumed on special occasions and social or family meetings, whereas mineral water and bottled water are, for a large number of people, an everyday consumer product. However, that does not mean that there is no ‘type of similarity’ between the goods in question (see paragraph 26 of the contested decision). According to the Board of Appeal, even if the average consumer is aware of the distinction between water and alcoholic beverages (including those with a low alcoholic strength), the Court has already held that those differences were insufficient to exclude a low degree of similarity between alcoholic beverages and mineral and bottled waters. In that respect, the Board of Appeal referred to paragraph 46 of the judgment of 9 March 2005, Osotspa v OHMI – Distribution & Marketing (Hai) (T‑33/03, EU:T:2005:89), and to paragraphs 31 and 32 of the judgment of 5 October 2011, Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHMI – Sotelo Ares (ROSALIA DE CASTRO) (T‑421/10, not published, EU:T:2011:565) (see paragraph 27 of the contested decision).
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2021 –

Lück v EUIPO – R. H. Investment (MALLE)

(Case T‑188/21)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark MALLE – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Ineffective nature of the single plea in law)

1. Action for annulment – Pleas in law – Pleas in law and complaints which cannot lead to the annulment of the contested measure – Ineffective pleas in law (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 14)

2. Action for annulment – Subject matter – Decision based on several pillars of reasoning, each sufficient to justify the operative part – Annulment of such a decision – Conditions (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 15)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal – Interpretation of the grounds for refusal in the light of the public interest underlying each of them (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 16)

4. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d)) (see para. 17)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 (Case R 1393/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between R. H. Investment and Mr Lück.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2022 –

CNH Industrial v EUIPO (SOILXPLORER)

(Case T‑300/21)

(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark SOILXPLORER – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 14)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark SOILXPLORER (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 22, 27, 38)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 (Case R 386/2021-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SOILXPLORER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 December 2021 –

QB v Commission

(Case T‑71/21)

(Civil service – Temporary staff – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance – Main occupation – Work done for another State)

Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Services performed for another State or international organisation – Concept – Services performed in an international non-profit association which is not part of the permanent representation of a Member State – Not included

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))

(see paras 62, 75-83)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of 6 April 2020 refusing to grant the expatriation allowance to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
3.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 30)
1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 December 2020 (Case R 644/2020-4) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 9 and the services in Classes 38 and 42 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;
4.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Trade mark made up of several elements – Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark – Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b), and 51(1)(a)) (see para. 42)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Direction issued to the Office – Precluded

(Art. 263 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 72(6))

(see para. 21)
2.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21)
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3))

(see paras 23-26, 28, 90, 120, 127)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 April 2022 –

Hungary v Commission

(Case T‑57/21) ( 1 )

(EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Obligation to increase on-the-spot checks – Article 35 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 – Legal value of the working documents of the Commission – Calculation of the increase in the rate of on-the-spot checks)

Agriculture – EAGF and the EAFRD financing – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes – Increase in the rate of on-the-spot checks for significant non-compliance – Discretion of the Member States relating to the arrangements for checks – Verification by the Commission – Legal value of the working documents of the Commission – Decision of the Commission based on such documents and excluding certain expenditure from European Union financing – Annulment

(Art. 263 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 809/2014, Art. 35)

(see paras 25, 29-34, 39, 40, 63-67, 90, 91, operative part)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), only in so far as the European Commission excluded the sum of EUR 4 334 068.02 from the amount of financial aid granted to Hungary by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the financial year 2018 on account of an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Revision of a judgment - Conditions for the admissibility of the application - New fact - Fact known before the contested judgment was pronounced - Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Arts 41 and 46)

Summary

It follows from the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, made applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance by the first paragraph of Article 46 of that Statute, that revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows an applicant to call in question the authority of res judicata attaching to a judgment bringing the proceedings to an end on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon the court. Revision presupposes the discovery of elements of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment and which were unknown at that time to the court which delivered it as well as to the party applying for revision and which, had the court been able to take them into consideration, could have led it to a different determination of the proceedings.

An application for revision in support of which is put forward a fact known to the applicant for revision before the judgment was pronounced is therefore manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Provisional measures - Conditions for grant - Serious and irreparable damage - Pecuniary damage - Balancing of all the interests involved

( EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure, Art . 83(2 ) )

Summary

In an application for interim measures, purely pecuniary damage cannot, in principle, be regarded as irreparable or even as difficult to repair since ex hypothesi it may be the subject of subsequent financial compensation .

However, it is for the court hearing the application for interim measures to assess the factors which, in the particular circumstances of each case, are such as to establish whether immediate implementation of the decisions whose suspension is sought is likely to expose the applicant to the risk of damage which cannot be repaired even if the decisions are subsequently annulled in the main proceedings .

The court hearing the application for interim measures must balance the respective interests of the parties and determine whether the grant of interim measures is necessary to avoid causing the applicant serious and irreparable damage .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Allocation of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Proceedings instituted by a natural or legal person on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty concerning the implementation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings and pending before the Court of First Instance - Proceedings for the annulment of the same act, but instituted by a Member State, pending before the Court of Justice - In the interest of the proper administration of justice for the Court of Justice to consider the arguments of the natural or legal person - Disclaimer of jurisdiction by the Court of First Instance

(Council Decision 88/591, Art. 3(1)(c); Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 47, third para.).
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Actions - Staff of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training - Articles 43 and 44 of Regulation No 1859/76 - Application of the case-law relating to Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91; Council Regulation No 1859/76, Arts 43 and 44)

2. Officials - Actions - Request for information later described as a complaint by the applicant - Assimilation to a prior complaint through administrative channels for the purposes of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Not permissible

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2))

3. Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Complimentary memorandum addressed to an official, not capable of affecting his legal situation - Exclusion

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition ° Administrative procedure ° Examination of complaints ° Concept of complaint within the meaning of Regulation No 17 ° Complaint referring only to the provisions of the Treaty concerning State aid ° Exclusion ° Consequences as to classification to be given to Commission reply

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85, 86, 92 and 93; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

2. Actions for annulment ° Actionable measures ° Concept ° Measures producing binding legal effects ° Administrative procedure implementing competition rules ° Preliminary observations of the Commission ° Communication provided for in Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 ° Preparatory measures

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3(2); Commission Regulation No 99/63, Art. 6)

Summary

1. A complaint addressed to the Commission which refers clearly and exclusively to Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty and not to Articles 85 and 86 cannot be described as an application under Article 3 of Regulation No 17. Consequently, unless the Commission subsequently receives an additional complaint under Article 85 and 86 or decides to take action upon its own initiative under those articles, the reply given cannot be interpreted as a reply by the Commission to such an application.

2. In view of their legal nature and effects, neither the preliminary observations made by the Commission' s services at the beginning of a procedure relating to an infringement of the competition rules nor the communication to the complainant provided for in Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 may be regarded as decisions, within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, against which an action for annulment lies. In the context of the administrative procedure as regulated by Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 and by Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63, they do not constitute measures having legally binding effect of such a nature as to affect the interests of the applicant, but preparatory measures.

Nor, a fortiori, may correspondence addressed to a complainant which neither expresses an opinion on the status of the alleged facts nor, in itself and at that stage of the procedure, has the effect of terminating the investigation carried out by the Commission, be deemed to be a decision within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons having an interest ° Case concerning the validity of a decision applying the competition rules ° Action for the annulment of a decision exempting a system of selective distribution for de luxe cosmetics ° Association whose statutes specify that its object is to promote the cosmetics industry and which represents undertakings operating distribution systems such as that with which the decision is concerned

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Originating application ° Formal requirements ° Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute ° Summary of the pleas relied upon

(Statute of the Court of Justice (EEC), Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2. Officials ° Actions ° Action against a regulation ° Inadmissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3. Officials ° Actions ° Claim for compensation linked with a claim for annulment ° Inadmissibility of the claim for annulment entailing the inadmissibility of the claim for compensation

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

1. An application in which the claim for annulment does not disclose the adverse measure whose annulment is sought, and in which the claim for compensation does not disclose the conduct or fault on the part of the administration giving rise to the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant, is inadmissible.

Such an application does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, according to which an originating application must set out the subject-matter of the dispute and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based.

2. Within the scheme of remedies provided for in the Staff Regulations, an action for the annulment of a regulation of general application which cannot be deemed to be a decision of the administration which, although adopted in the form of a regulation, is of direct and individual concern to the applicant is inadmissible.

3. Where an official brings an action seeking both the annulment of an act of the administration and compensation for the damage which he considers himself to have suffered as a result of that act, the claims are closely linked with each other and, consequently, the inadmissibility of the claim for annulment entails the inadmissibility of the claim for compensation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment ° Measures adopted by the European Investment Bank ° Action brought under Article 180(c) of the Treaty by a natural or legal person ° Inadmissibility ° Judicial redress secured by an action for damages

(EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 180(c))

Summary

According to Article 180(c) of the Treaty, an action for the annulment of a measure adopted by the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank may be instituted only by Member States or by the Commission. Consequently, that provision, a more flexible interpretation of which would go beyond the limits laid down by its wording for the Community judicature, precludes actions brought by natural or legal persons. This does not have the effect of depriving that category of persons of effective judicial redress, since that is secured for them by the jurisdiction of the Community judicature under Article 178 of the Treaty to entertain disputes relating to the non-contractual liability of the European Investment Bank.