ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 July 2016 —

Italy v Commission

(Case T‑770/14)

‛ERDF — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 — Failure to comply with deadlines — Automatic decommitment — Proportionality — Principle of cooperation — Principle of partnership — Force majeure — Obligation to state reasons — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — European Regional Development Fund — Management and control — Deadlines for claiming payment of sums granted — Non-compliance — Unclaimed sums automatically decommitted — Exception — Force majeure — Concept — Need to comply with budgetary and financial control procedures under national law — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 96(c)) (see paras 34, 37)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision on clearance of structural fund accounts (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 50, 51)

3. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — European Regional Development Fund — Modification of a structural intervention programme — Amending decision with errors in its heading allegedly liable to prevent its implementation by the Member State concerned — Late rectification by the Commission — No infringement of the principles of partnership in the management of structural funds, constitutional identity and duty of cooperation (Art. 4(2) and (3) TEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 11) (see paras 57, 59)

4. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — European Regional Development Fund — Management and control — Deadlines for claiming payment of sums granted — Non-compliance — Unclaimed sums automatically decommitted — No breach of principle of proportionality (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Arts 93 to 97) (see paras 70-76)

Re:

ACTION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission note Ares (2014) 2975571 of 11 September 2014, by which the Commission notified the Italian Republic of the automatic decommitment, on 31 December 2013, of a part of the resources relating to European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) commitments referred to in the Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013, and, secondly, that the General Court declare the expenditure relating to the ImaGenX, Simit and PIM Energethica projects eligible for financing.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
59

The Council contends that the grounds for the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list have a solid factual basis. Those grounds are based on the letter of 7 March 2014 indicating that the applicant was under investigation for involvement in crimes in connection with the misappropriation of State funds and their illegal transfer out of Ukraine, which corresponds to the statement of reasons concerning the applicant set out in Implementing Decision 2014/216 and in Implementing Regulation No 381/2014. The Council states in that regard that the need to produce concrete evidence does not extend to proving the veracity of the crimes which the Ukrainian authorities suspect the applicant of having committed. It is sufficient that the Council produce evidence of the existence of investigations into alleged misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds; it is not necessary for it to produce evidence that the applicant is actually guilty, which it is for the Ukrainian judicial authorities to establish. The Council submits that a distinction must, moreover, be drawn between, on the one hand, the ongoing criminal proceedings (including investigations) in Ukraine, in which the applicant will be able to defend himself in accordance with the rules of Ukrainian criminal procedure and, on the other, the temporary and preventive measures freezing his assets at EU level, for the adoption of which the Council is not required to adduce proof of the offences for which the applicant is under investigation. Thus, the Council could rely on the mere existence of an ongoing investigation when deciding to impose restrictive measures.
25

By its application, the applicant cannot obtain a partial annulment of the contested decision on the ground that it is based on an assessment — not made by the Board of Appeal — of a likelihood of confusion between the marks in question by including in that assessment goods with a specific purpose on which the Board of Appeal had not been asked to rule. On the contrary, as OHIM rightly contends, in the context of the comparison of the goods in question, the Board of Appeal was deemed to check whether all the potential purposes of those goods gave reason for concluding that they were similar or even identical. In that regard, the Court notes that, in the assessment of the similarity of goods, all the relevant factors of the relationship existing between those goods must be taken into account, including, in particular, their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 29 September 1998 in Canon, C‑39/97, ECR, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 23). Furthermore, for the purposes of applying Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, a likelihood of confusion presupposes both an identity or similarity of the marks in question and an identity or similarity of the goods or services that they designate, those conditions being cumulative (judgments of 13 September 2007 in Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM, C‑234/06 P, ECR, EU:C:2007:514, paragraph 48, and 22 January 2009 in Commercy v OHIM — easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel), T‑316/07, ECR, EU:T:2009:14, paragraph 42). In the present case, it is precisely the comparison of the goods with their generic and varied characteristics as applied for initially — and not those specified a posteriori — which led the Board of Appeal to find that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks in question. Consequently, in contrast to a situation in which an applicant withdraws from its application for a Community trade mark certain of the goods for which it had initially requested registration, in the present case the applicant’s application concerns a comprehensive and inseparable assessment by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision, which is not capable of being annulled in part. In this regard, the mere fact that the applicant submitted before the bodies of OHIM, as it stated in its reply to the Court’s written question, that its business concerned solely the use of recreational or gaming machines in casinos and amusement arcades cannot invalidate that assessment, since the goods which were the subject matter of its initial application for a Community trade mark were covered by that application on the basis of their broad meanings and intended purposes.
9

By decision of 27 February 2014 (‘the contested decision’), the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the application for registration of the mark applied for. The Board of Appeal stated, in paragraph 16 of the contested decision, that it would start by examining the earlier trade mark registered under number 4073334. It found, in paragraphs 17 to 19 of the contested decision, that the relevant territory was that of the European Union and that the target consumer was the public at large, deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, and with a level of attention that had to be regarded as average. The Board of Appeal endorsed, in paragraph 20 of the contested decision, the Opposition Division’s assessment that the goods at issue were identical. In paragraphs 30 and 31 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal took the view that, visually and phonetically, the signs at issue were similar. In paragraph 32 of that decision, it considered that those signs were conceptually similar to a high degree for the English-speaking public. In paragraph 33 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal accordingly concluded that the signs at issue were similar. As regards the likelihood of confusion, the Board of Appeal considered, in paragraphs 34 to 40 of the contested decision, that, taking into account consumers’ imperfect recollection of trade marks, there was a likelihood of confusion given the identical nature of the goods at issue and the similarity of the signs in question. After having indicated, in paragraph 39 of the contested decision, that, for reasons of procedural economy, it was not going to examine the other earlier marks on which the opposition was based, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 —

Kaddour v Council

(Case T‑155/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 8-10)

2. Application for interim measures — Formal requirements — Submission of applications — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Insufficient explanation of the grounds constituting a prima facie case — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c), and 104(3)) (see paras 11, 12)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and restrictions on entry into and transit through EU territory — Need to provide a trustworthy overall image of the situation of the person concerned by the restrictive measures (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-17)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the measures imposed on the applicant under Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), and of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117 of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 10 December 2015 —

GGP Italy v Commission

(Case T‑474/15 R)

‛Interim measures — Directive 2006/42/EC — Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers against risks arising from the use of machinery — Measure taken by the Latvian authorities prohibiting a type of lawnmower — Commission Decision declaring the measure justified — Application to suspend operation — Lack of urgency’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art 156(3)) (see paras 12-14)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art 156(3)) (see paras 26-29, 32)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Non-material damage not capable of being better remedied at the interim stage than in the main proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art 156(3)) (see para. 35)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/902 of 10 June 2015 on a measure taken by Latvia in accordance with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to prohibit the placing on the market of a lawnmower manufactured by GGP Italy SpA (OJ 2015 L 147, p. 22).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 November 2015 —

Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)

(Case T‑202/15)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark WORLD OF BINGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 12-14)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Figurative mark WORLD OF BINGO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 (Case R 1899/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign WORLD OF BINGO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2016 —

European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

(Case T‑310/15)

‛Action for annulment — Plant-protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Establishment of a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of copper compounds on that list — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory measure comprising implementing measures — Inadmissible’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission regulation identifying an active substance as a candidate for substitution pursuant to Regulation No 1107/2009 — Action by an association of producers of the substance in question — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1107/2009, Art. 80(7), and Annex II, point 4; Commission Regulation No 2015/408, second recital and Art. 1; Council Directive 91/414, Annex I) (see paras 19-32)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Concept of a regulatory act — Any act of general scope other than legislative acts — Commission regulation identifying an active substance as a candidate for substitution pursuant to Regulation No 1107/2009 — Included (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 289(1) to (3) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1107/2009, Arts 78(3), and 79(2); Commission Regulation No 2015/408; Council Decision 1999/468, Arts 3 and 7) (see paras 34-36)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts — Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly — Concept of implementing measures — Criteria — Commission regulation identifying an active substance as a candidate for substitution pursuant to Regulation No 1107/2009 — Effects produced through the intermediary of measures taken by the national authorities — Acts constituting implementing measures (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1107/2009, Arts 20(1), 24(1), 36(2), 41(2)(b), 43(1), 44(3), 45(1), and 50(1) and (4); Commission Regulation No 2015/408) (see paras 37, 44, 47, 48, 50, 51)

4. Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Review of legality of EU measures — Procedures — Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure — Possibility of using an annulment action or reference for a preliminary ruling on validity (Art. 19(1) TEU; Arts 263 TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51(1)) (see paras 53-59)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ 2015 L 67, p. 18).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Parliament and the Council.
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 —

ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission

(Case T‑732/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Environment — Consumer protection — Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 16-18)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage for the applicant — Adverse effect on interests not personal to the applicant — Not included (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see para. 34)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 35, 38-40, 42, 45, 47, 52, 55)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Adoption of a regulation fixing maximum limits applicable to guazatine residues — Risk normally having to be borne by an undertaking operating in the phytopharmaceuticals market — No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3); Commission Regulation 2015/1910; Council Directive 91/414, Annex I) (see paras 48-51, 57)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Lack of diligence by the applicant taken into account (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court Art. 156(3)) (see para. 56)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for guazatine in or on certain products (OJ 2015 L 280, p. 2).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Case T‑590/15

Onix Asigurări SA

v

European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)

‛Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Application for an investigation to be initiated into alleged infringement of EU law — Decision of the chairman of EIOPA not to initiate an investigation — Decision of the Board of Appeal to dismiss the complaint as inadmissible — Time-limits for bringing proceedings — Act not open to challenge — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis’

Summary — Order of the General Court (Second Chamber), 24 June 2016

Actions for failure to act — Position taken within the meaning of Article 265, second para., TFEU before the action brought — Concept — Refusal to act in accordance with the request — Included

The legal remedy provided for in Article 265 TFEU is based on the premiss that unlawful inaction on the part of an institution enables those concerned to bring an action before the EU courts seeking a declaration that the failure to act is contrary to the FEU Treaty. A failure to act, for the purposes of the article, means a failure to take a decision or to define a position, and not the adoption of a measure different from that sought or considered necessary by the applicant. (see paras 31, 37)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 32)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 40)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 48, 49)

Where an EU institution or body is not required to initiate a procedure, but has a discretion excluding the right of individuals to demand that it take a position in a specific sense, persons who have lodged a complaint are not, in principle, able to bring an action before the EU judicature against a decision not to take action on their complaint. It follows from Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1094/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (EIOPA), according to which, upon a request from one of the bodies expressly referred to or on its own initiative, EIOPA may investigate an alleged breach or non-application of EU law, EIOPA has a discretionary power in relation to investigations, both when it receives a request from one of the bodies referred to and when it acts on its own initiative. It follows, first, that that authority is not in any way required to act pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation No 1094/2010, and, second, that the decision to refuse to initiate a procedure does not produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of an applicant. Consequently, an action seeking annulment of an EIOPA decision refusing to open an investigation on its own initiative, on the basis of the said Article 17, is inadmissible. (see paras 50, 52-54, 57)
Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Commission decision finding State aid compatible with the internal market without opening the formal investigation procedure—Action by interested parties within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU—Identification of the subject-matter of the action—Action designed to safeguard the procedural rights of the persons concerned—Admissibility—Pleas capable of being invoked

(Arts 108(2) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 1(h), 4(3), and 6(1))

(see paras 36-39, 45-48)