ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)

(Case T-380/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark INTAS - Earlier EU and national figurative trade marks including the word element ‘indas’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs and of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 47 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Laboratorios Indas, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2018 (Case R 815/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Indas and Intas Pharmaceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-14/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Decoupled direct aid - Flat-rate financial correction - Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 - Obligation to state reasons - Assessment of the damage - Proportionality)

(2020/C 61/28)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017, 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 2017 L 292, p. 61) in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — Conte v EUIPO (CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM)

(Case T-683/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 36/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Santa Conte (Naples, Italy) (represented by: C. Demichelis, E. Ortaglio and G. Iorio Fiorelli, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2018 (Case R 2181/2017-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Santa Conte to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — WD v EFSA

(Case T-320/18) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary agents - Fixed term contract - Decision not to reclassify - Lack of staff reports - Carrying forward reclassification points - Manifest error of assessment - Non-renewal decision - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of power - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons - Right to a hearing - Liability)

(2020/C 95/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (represented by: D. Detken and F. Volpi, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and C. Dekemexhe, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the EFSA’s decision of 14 July 2017 not to reclassify the applicant at Grade AST 6 in the 2017 reclassification exercise, the EFSA’s decision of 9 August 2017 not to renew her contract, and the decisions of 9 February and 12 March 2018 dismissing the complaints against those two decisions and, second, seeking compensation for the material and non-material damage the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the application;

2. orders WD to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 259, 23. 7. 2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2020 — Iberpotash v Commission

(Case T-257/18) (1)

(State aid - Mining sector - Measure consisting (i) in the reduction of financial guarantees for the restoration of mining sites and (ii) in State investment for the restoration of mining sites ensuring a higher level of environmental protection - Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of ‘aid’ - Advantage - Transfer of State resources - Selective nature - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Calculation of the amount of the aid)

(2020/C 68/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iberpotash, SA (Súria, Spain) (represented by: N. Niejahr and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/118 of 31 August 2017 on State aid SA.35818 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2012/CP) implemented by Spain for Iberpotash (OJ 2018 L 28, p. 25).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Iberpotash, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2020 — IFSUA v Council

(Case T-251/18) (1)

(Fisheries - Conservation of marine biological resources - Regulation (EU) 2018/120 - Measures concerning the fishing for European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) - Action for annulment brought by an association - Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern of the members of the association - Admissibility - Competence of the European Union to regulate recreational fisheries - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality - Precautionary principle - Freedom of association and freedom to conduct a business)

(2020/C 137/72)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities (IFSUA) (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. Gui Mori and R. Agut Jubert, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and P. Plaza García, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Morales Puerta, F. Moro and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (OJ 2018 L 27, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities (IFSUA) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interim proceedings;

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

(1) OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 —Akili Mundos v Council

(Case T-172/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Renewal of the listing of the applicant’s name on the list of persons covered by restrictive measures adopted autonomously by the Union - First listing of applicant’s name on the list of persons covered by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Obligation for the Council to communicate the new elements justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Plea of illegality)

(2020/C 103/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Muhindo Akili Mundos (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, S. Lejeune and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 328, p. 19), of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2018/202 of 9 February 2018 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 38, p. 19), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/197 of 9 February 2018 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 38, p. 2), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Muhindo Akili Mundos to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-445/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 215/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2018 (Case R 1270/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (le Sac 11)

(Case T-654/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark le sac 11 - Earlier national word mark LESAC and earlier national figurative marks lesac - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 209/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Felipe Domingo Asunción (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 (Case R 2464/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Asunción and Giorgio Armani.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Giorgio Armani SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Crédit agricole v ECB

(Case T-576/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Administrative pecuniary penalty imposed by the ECB on a credit institution - First subparagraph of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Continued breach of capital requirements - Negligent breach - Retroactive application of less severe enforcement legislation - Absence - Rights of defence - Amount of the penalty - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 313/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of the ECB of 16 July 2018, taken pursuant to Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63) and imposing on the applicant an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 4 300 000 for continued breach of the capital requirements laid down in Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68, and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018 in so far as it imposes on Crédit Agricole SA an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 4 300 000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Crédit Agricole to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the ECB to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Consejo Regulador ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ v EUIPO — Airesano Foods (AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel)

(Case T-696/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel - Earlier EU figurative mark JAMON DE TERUEL CONSEJO REGULADOR DE LA DENOMINACION DE ORIGEN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ (Teruel, Spain) (represented by F. Pérez Álvarez and J. Pérez Itarte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. F. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Airesano Foods, SL (La Puebla de Valverde, Spain) (represented by: J. Sanmartín, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and M. J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 (Case R 88/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ and Airesano Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Airesano Foods, SL;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — VE v ESMA

(Cases T-77/18 and T-567/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Appraisal report - 2016 appraisal exercise - Plea of illegality relating to the appraisals guide - Manifest error of assessment - Assessment of activities undertaken as staff representative - Procedural irregularity - Termination of the work contract - Insufficient performance during a period of two years)

(2020/C 414/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VE (represented by L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (represented by: A. Lorenzet and N. Vasse, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Applications based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period starting on 1 January 2016 and ending on 31 December 2016, of the decision of 14 November 2017 terminating his temporary agent contract and of the decisions rejecting his complaints against those acts and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-77/18 and T-567/18 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls VE’s appraisal report for the period starting on 1 January 2016 and ending 31 December 2016;

3. Annuls the decision of 14 November 2017 terminating VE’s temporary agent contract;

4. Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

5. Orders the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — P. Krücken Organic v Commission

(Case T-565/18) (1)

(Institutional law - Action for damages - Conditions in which the European Union incurs non-contractual liability - Arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries - Private inspection body - Concept of appropriate supervision within the meaning of Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 - Attributability of conduct)

(2020/C 390/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: P. Krücken Organic GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers, B. Hofstötter and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result, first, of the alleged infringement by the Commission of its duties under Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1) and, second, of certain conduct on the part of Ecocert SA allegedly attributable to the Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders P. Krücken Organic GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA

(Case T-207/18) (1)

(REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Supplement to the entry relating to the substance bisphenol A on that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Weight of evidence approach - Exploratory studies - Intermediate uses - Proportionality)

(2021/C 53/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, É. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs and S. Heimerl, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, J. Traband, E. Leclerc and W. Zemamta, acting as Agents), ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA Decision ED/01/2018 of 3 January 2018, by which the existing entry relating to bisphenol A on the list of identified substances with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3), in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation, was supplemented to the effect that bisphenol A is also identified as a substance with endocrine disrupting properties that may have serious effects on the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to those of other substances listed in Article 57(a) to (e) of that regulation, within the meaning of Article 57(f) thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PlasticsEurope to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth;

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

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.