ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/25

Order of the General Court of 27 October 2015 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-721/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Online gambling services - Protection of consumers and players and prevention of minors from gambling online - Commission Recommendation - Act not subject to review - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 429/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU of 14 July 2014 on principles for the protection of consumers and players of online gambling services and for the prevention of minors from gambling online (OJ 2014 L 214, p. 38).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Hellenic Republic and the Portuguese Republic.

3. The Kingdom of Belgium shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. The Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs of the applications for leave to intervene.

(1) OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/58

Order of the General Court of 26 August 2015 — Monard v Commission

(Case T-239/14) (1)

(2015/C 381/72)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) C 212, 7.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/26

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Universal Music v OHIM — Yello Strom (Yellow Lounge)

(Case T-379/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 068/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universal Music GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhus, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: G. Schneider, and subsequently by: G. Schneider and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Yello Strom GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2014 (Case R 274/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Yello Strom GmbH and Universal Music GmbH.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

2. Universal Music GmbH and Yello Strom GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/56

Order of the General Court of 1 December 2015 — Banco Espírito Santo v Commission

(Case T-814/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid to the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA - Creation of a bridge bank - Decision not to raise objections - Commitments made by the Portuguese authorities - Monitoring of compliance with their commitments by a trustee - Payment of the trustee by the bad bank - Application for partial annulment - Inadmissible))

(2016/C 038/75)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Banco Espírito Santo SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques and L.Bordalo e Sá, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, M. França and P.-J Loewenthal, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Points 9 and 18 of Annex II to Commission Decision C (2014) 5682 final, of 3 August 2014, State aid No SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal, Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo, S.A., in so far as they impose, or may be interpreted as imposing, on the applicant the responsibility for ensuring the remuneration or payment of any other costs of the Monitoring Trustee with respect to the commitments made by the Portuguese Republic:

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to give a ruling on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the Portuguese Republic.

3. Banco Espirito Santo SA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. Banco Espirito Santo SA, the European Commission and the Portuguese Republic are each ordered to bear their own costs relating for the application for leave to intervene.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/49

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission

(Case T-506/14) (1)

(2016/C 343/67)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/44

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — IREPA v Commission and Court of Auditors

(Case T-825/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Fishing - Italian National Fisheries Data Collection Programme for the period 2009-2010 - Recovery of a part of the advances paid to the applicant - Court of Auditors’ preliminary report - Measure not open to challenge - Preparatory measure - Pre-information letters - Debit note - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 270/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Istituto di ricerche economiche per la pesca e l’acquacoltura — IREPA Onlus (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: F. Tedeschini, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro, D. Nardi and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents), and Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: N. Scafarto and L. Massocchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for the annulment of the decision which contained the debit note of 30 September 2014 issued by the Commission for the recovery of the amount of EUR 458 347,35, the Court of Auditors’ report of 27 February 2013, the Commission’s letters of 12 July 2013 and 6 August 2014 and of any other prior, related, or in any event subsequent measure, even unknown, affecting the applicant’s legal financial situation.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

2. Istituto di ricerche economiche per la pesca e l’acquacoltura — IREPA Onlus shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Court of Auditors of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2022 –

Arhs developments v Commission

(Case T‑88/22 R)

(Interim relief – Public supply contracts – Provision of Development, Implementation, Maintenance/Operations, Advice and Consultancy Services in Accounting/Finance and Financial IT Systems – Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer – Application for interim measures – Cancellation of the procurement procedure – Proceedings which have become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate)

Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Invalidity of the contested decision – Request which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU)

(see paragraphs 11-14)

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

2. The order of 21 February 2022, Arhs developments v Commission (T‑88/22 R), is set aside.
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

(Arts 263, 267 and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

(see paragraphs 17, 18)
Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3))

(see paragraphs 16-19)
1.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment – Shape in question being a ‘variant’ of the habitual shapes of the type of products concerned – Fact not sufficient to establish distinctiveness of the mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 32-35, 37-39, 51, 53, 65)
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

(Arts 263, 267 and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

(see paragraphs 19, 20)
Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paragraphs 14-17)
Order of the President of the General Court of 30 May 2022 –

OT v Council

(Case T‑193/22 R)

(Interim relief – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Application for interim measures – No prima facie case – No urgency)

1. EU law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted – Scope – Notification to the person concerned through publication in the Official Journal – Council not able to effect notification – Whether permissible – No Infringement (Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/429; Council Regulations No 269/2014 and 2022/427) (see paragraphs 28-34)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him or her to understand the scope of the measure taken against him or her (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/429; Council Regulations No 269/2014 and 2022/427) (see paragraphs 35-38)

3. European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Factual basis – Specific, precise and consistent information (Council Regulations No 269/2014 and 2022/427) (see paragraph 47)

4. European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the persons or entities concerned are well founded (Council Regulations No 269/2014 and 2022/427) (see paragraphs 48-50)

5. Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities having regard to the situation in Ukraine – No breach of principle of proportionality (Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/429; Council Regulations No 269/2014 and 2022/427) (see paragraphs 62-67)

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
3.

Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Serious nature of the harm – Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company – Irremediable effect on its market share – Assessment in the light of the size and turnover of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs – Obligation to demonstrate the existence of obstacles of a structural or legal nature preventing that company from regaining a significant proportion of its market share (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paragraphs 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2022 –

Grupa ‘Lew’ v EUIPO – Lechwerke (GRUPALEW.)

(Case T‑672/21) ( )

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark GRUPALEW. – Earlier national figurative mark LEW – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Proof of genuine use – Article 10(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Boards of Appeal – Stay of proceedings – Conditions

(Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 71(1))

(see paragraphs 35-37)

2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)

(see paragraph 40)

3. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see paragraph 54)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Grupa ‘LEW’ S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Liability for an individual measure – Date on which the harmful effects of the measure with regard to the person concerned became apparent – Account taken of a subjective assessment of the reality of the damage – Not permissible

(Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.)

(see paragraphs 28-31, 36, 37)
6.

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 – Degree of attention of the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraph 52)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2022 –

Homoki v Commission

(Case T‑517/19 INTP)

(Interpretation of a judgment – Inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings – Interpretation of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility of the application

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 168(1))

(see paragraph 12)

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see paragraphs 42, 43)
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94, first sentence)

(see paragraphs 35-37, 50)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2022 –

Société Elmar Wolf v EUIPO – Fuxtec (Representation of the head of an animal)

(Case T‑596/21) ( 1 )

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing a head – Earlier national figurative mark representing the head of a canine – Earlier international registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing the head of a canine – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion)

1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies – Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see paragraph 15)

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 – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 19, 20, 51, 53, 54, 58)

3. 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 28-30, 45)

4. 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 – Figurative mark representing a head and figurative mark representing the head of a canine (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 39, 41, 46, 47, 59, 63, 67)

5. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Registration of a new trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1) and 76(1)) (see paragraph 55)

6. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paragraph 65)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Société Elmar Wolf, since it has been unsuccessful, to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

( 1 ) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.
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 – 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, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 30, 31)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – 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. 76(d))

(see paragraphs 21, 22, 31, 32)
Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – No statement of reasons – Rectified in the response to the complaint

(Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.)

(see paragraphs 90, 91)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Defence – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in statement – Reference to a previous judgment of the General Court – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 81(1)(c))

(see paragraph 44)
6.

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 – Sign capable of bearing multiple meanings – Refusal to register where descriptiveness of at least one of the potential meanings exists (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paragraphs 33, 46)
1.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 64(2)) (see paragraphs 16-22, 34, 38, 39)
6.

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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraph 60)