ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/29

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring v Commission

(Case T-611/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Table of contents of the Commission file relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU - Refusal of access - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to inform about available remedies - Exception for the protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality))

(2018/C 104/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by: E. Wagner and H. Hoffmeyer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, L. Wildpanner and A. Buchet, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, A. Buchet and F. Erlbacher and finally F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 3 September 2015 refusing the applicant access to the non-confidential version of the Commission decision of 4 December 2013 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement [Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Settlement procedure] and to the table of contents of the administrative file of that procedure and, secondly, action based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to establish a non-confidential version of Decision C(2013) 8512 final and of the table of contents relating to that procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/12

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-314/15) (1)

((State aid - Aid in favour of an undertaking which has concluded a concession to operate container terminals in the Port of Piraeus - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Right of defence - Duty to give reasons - Concept of State aid - Aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas - Incentive effect of the aid - Necessity of the aid - Determination of the amount of aid))

(2018/C 042/16)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and L. Kotroni, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, agents acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1827 of 23 March 2015, in relation to the State aid SA.28876 (12/C) (ex CP 202/2009) which Greece granted to the undertakings Piraeus Container Terminal SA and Cosco Pacific Ltd (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 93)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
Case T-283/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2018 — Esso Raffinage v ECHA (REACH — Dossier evaluation — Compliance check of registrations — Check of information submitted and follow-up to dossier evaluation — Statement of non-compliance — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Actions for annulment — Challengeable act — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Legal basis — Articles 41, 42 and 126 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2018 — Esso Raffinage v ECHA

(Case T-283/15) ( 1 )

‛(REACH — Dossier evaluation — Compliance check of registrations — Check of information submitted and follow-up to dossier evaluation — Statement of non-compliance — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Actions for annulment — Challengeable act — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Legal basis — Articles 41, 42 and 126 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)’

Parties

Applicant: Esso Raffinage (Courbevoie (France)) (represented by: M. Navin-Jones, solicitor)

Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: C. Jacquet, C. Schultheiss, W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Traband, acting as Agents), and Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. de Ree, M. Bulterman and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the letter from ECHA of 1 April 2015 addressed to the French Ministère de l’ecologie du developement durable, des transports et du logement (Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing) and entitled ‘Statement of Non-Compliance following a Dossier Evaluation Decision under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the letter of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 1 April 2015 addressed to the French Ministère de l’ecologie du developement durable, des transports et du logement (Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing) and entitled ‘Statement of Non-Compliance following a Dossier Evaluation Decision under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006’ and the annex thereto;

2. Orders Esso Raffinage and ECHA each to bear their own costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, The French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands each to bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/25

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-507/15) (1)

((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, Directive 2002/55/EC, Regulations (EC) No 1432/2003, (EC) No 1433/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 885/2006, (EC) No 1182/2007, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 1580/2007 and (EU) No 1306/2013 - Expenditure effected by Poland - Risk to EAGF - On-the-spot checks - Recognition criteria of a producer organisation - Discrepancies between language versions - Financial correction))

(2018/C 152/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Straś, M. Pawlicka and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Stobiecka Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2018 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

(Case T-552/15) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran - Compensation of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2019/C 72/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Council (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of restrictive measures against it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bank Refah Kargaran to bear its costs and pay those of the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Almaz-Antey v Council

(Case T-515/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Proportionality - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights))

(2018/C 392/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp., formerly OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Haak, C. Stumpf and M. Brüggemann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50); (ii) the letter from the Council dated 31 July 2015 by which the Council stated that the applicant should remain subject to the measures in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13) and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1); (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22); and (iv) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Ertico — ITS Europe v Commission

(Case T-604/15) (1)

(Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision of the Commission’s Validation Panel on qualification as a micro, small and medium-sized business - Request for review under sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of the Annex to Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom - No administrative appeal within the meaning of Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Res judicata - Criteria for the definition of micro, small and medium-sized businesses in EU policies - Concept of an ‘enterprise’ - Concept of an ‘economic activity’ - Criterion of independence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 230/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T’Syen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal and M. Clausen and, subsequently, R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Validation Panel of 18 August 2015 provided for under section 1.2.7 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom of 18 December 2012 on the adoption of the Rules to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacities, in indirect actions supported through the form of a grant under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities and under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (OJ 2012 L 359, p. 45), in so far as that decision concludes that the applicant does not qualify as a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) to bear one half of its costs;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of the costs incurred by Ertico — ITS Europe.

(1) OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
1.

Fixes the amount of compensation to be paid by the European Commission to Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton in accordance with the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15), at EUR 234 353, together with default interest with effect from 28 February 2018 until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;
Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission

(Case T-564/15 RENV) (1)

(Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) - Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 - Calls for proposals - Decision establishing the list of proposals selected - Rejection of the proposal - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 247/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: Y. de Vries and J. de Kok, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Kalėda and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector, following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice, in Case C-635/16 P, and relating to the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-564/15;

3. Orders Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor to pay the costs relating to the proceedings referred back to the General Court, in Case T-564/15 RENV.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission

(Case T-763/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Infringement by object - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2019/C 305/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sony Optiarc, Inc. (Atsugi, Japan) and Sony Optiarc America, Inc. (San Jose, United States) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. Farley, A. Biolan, C. Giolito, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, and subsequently by M. Farley, F. van Schaik, L. Wildpanner and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sony Optiarc, Inc. and Sony Optiarc America, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/22

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v EUIPO (CAFFÈ NERO)

(Case T-29/16) (1)

(((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark CAFFÈ NERO - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 462/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Caffè Nero Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Cassidy, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 410/2015-1), relating to the application for registration of the word sign CAFFÈ NERO as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Caffè Nero Group Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/11

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended)

(Case T-30/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended - Earlier EU word marks INSTINCT and NATURE’S VARIETY - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Nature of the use - Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 095/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M. I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: initially by T. Elias, Barrister, and B. Cookson, Solicitor, and subsequently by M. Montañá Mora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker, lawyers, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Case R 2944/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between M. I. Industries and Natural Instinct.

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 26 November 2015 (Case R 2944/2014-5) in so far as it concludes that there is no genuine use of the earlier word mark INSTINCT;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by M. I. Industries Inc.;

4. Orders M. I. Industries to bear half of its own costs;

5. Orders Natural Instinct Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/27

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Netguru v EUIPO (NETGURU)

(Case T-54/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark NETGURU - Absolute ground for refusal - Lac k of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/37)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Netguru sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented: initially by K. Jarosiński, and subsequently by T. Grzybkowski, T. Guzek and M. Jackowski, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2015 (Case R 144/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign NETGURU as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Netguru sp. z o.o. to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/26

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Azanta v EUIPO — Novartis (NIMORAL)

(Case T-49/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NIMORAL - Earlier EU word mark NEORAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 161/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Azanta A/S (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 (Case R 634/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Azanta.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Azanta A/S to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/41

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX)

(Case T-430/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark BRENT INDEX - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: P. Heusler, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 (Case R 8/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BRENT INDEX as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/22

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS)

(Case T-355/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MULTI FRUITS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 221/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 (Case R 1043/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MULTI FRUITS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.