ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Leonine Distribution v Commission

(Case T-641/20) (1)

(Culture - Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) - MEDIA sub-programme - Call for Proposals EACEA/05/2018 - Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application on the ground of failure to comply with the eligibility conditions - Commission decision dismissing the administrative appeal relating to the EACEA’s decision - Concept of ‘European company’ - Grant open only to applicants owned, directly or by majority participation, by nationals of EU Member States or by nationals of other European countries participating in the sub-programme - Errors of assessment - Failure to examine the documents annexed to the proposal - Proportionality)

(2022/C 311/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Leonine Distribution GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Kreile, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Farrell and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Education and Culture Executive Agency (represented by: H. Monet, N. Sbrilli and V. Kasparian, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 5515 final of 10 August 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1) against the decision of the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of 12 May 2020 rejecting its application for a grant in the context of the call for proposals ‘Support for the distribution of non-national films — Distribution Automatic Scheme’ (EACEA/05/2018).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Leonine Distribution GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — EMCS v EUAA

(Case T-621/20) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of temporary agency workers for EASO - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Equal treatment - Principle of transparency - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 294/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EMCS ltd. (Msida, Malta) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. Groot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) (represented by: P. Eyckmans and J. van Heel, acting as Agents, and by V. Ost and M. Umbach, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the decision of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of 23 July 2020, entitled ‘Call for tenders EASO/2020/789 Provision of Temporary Agency Workers for EASO in Malta’, rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the call for tenders and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, under Article 268 TFEU, for compensation of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EMCS ltd. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — OQ v Commission

(Case T-713/20) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 (AD 7) - Croatian-language lawyer-linguists at the Court of Justice of the European Union - Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition - Conditions for admission - Condition relating to a level of education corresponding to a full course of university studies leading to qualifications in Croatian law - Possession of French qualifications in law - Freedom of movement for workers - Action for annulment)

(2022/C 418/25)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicant: OQ (represented by: R. Štaba, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska, R. Mrljić and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 3 September 2020 not to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list of Croatian-language lawyer-linguists for the Court of Justice of the European Union. The applicant also seeks annulment of the rejection of his request for review of that decision, adopted by decision of the selection board of 12 October 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the competition selection board of 12 October 2020 rejecting OQ’s request for review and refusing to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list of ‘Croatian-language (HR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)’ for the Court of Justice of the European Union;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OQ.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — VeriGraft v Eismea

(Case T-457/20) (1)

(Arbitration clause - ‘Horizon 2020 — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’ (2014-2020) - Grant Agreement ‘Personalised Tissue-Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P TEV’ - Unforeseen subcontracting costs - Simplified approval procedure - Subcontracting mentioned in the periodic technical reports - Approved periodic technical reports - Eligible costs)

(2022/C 359/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VeriGraft AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Hansson and M. Persson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (Eismea) (represented by: A. Galea, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 272 TFEU, the applicant, VeriGraft AB, seeks a declaration: (i) that the subcontracting costs rejected by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) constitute eligible costs under the Grant Agreement relating to the project ‘Personalised Tissue-Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P-TEV’, with reference 778620; (ii) that debit note No 3242004635 issued by EASME in the amount of EUR 106 928,74 is unfounded; and (iii) that the recovery of the sum of EUR 109 230,19 from the guarantee fund set up by the Grant Agreement is also unfounded.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Upholds VeriGraft AB’s request seeking a declaration that the subcontracting costs rejected by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the amount of EUR 258 588,80 constitute eligible costs under the Grant Agreement ‘Personalised Tissue-Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P-TEV’, with reference 778620;

2. Upholds VeriGraft’s request seeking a declaration that debit note No 3242004635, issued by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the amount of EUR 106 928,74, is unfounded;

3. Upholds VeriGraft’s request seeking a declaration that the recovery of the sum of EUR 109 230,19 from the guarantee fund set up by the Grant Agreement ‘Personalised Tissue-Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P-TEV’, with reference 778620, is unfounded;

4. Orders the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (Eismea) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — PNB Banka v ECB

(Case T-230/20) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Decision to withdraw the authorisation of the credit institution PNB Banka - Proposal of the national competent authority to withdraw authorisation - Insolvency decision in respect of PNB Banka - Reasonable time - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)

(2023/C 35/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, F. Bonnard and V. Hümpfner, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Pommere, J. Davidoviča and E. Bārdiņš, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 17 February 2020, ECB-SSM-220-LVPNB-1, WHD-2019-0016, withdrawing its authorisation as a credit institution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief;

3. Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — JS v SRB

(Case T-270/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Appraisal report - 2018 appraisal exercise - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of impartiality - Right to a fair hearing - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Liability)

(2023/C 7/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JS (represented by L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by L. Forestier, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, lodged at the Court Registry on 7 May 2020, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of his appraisal report for 2018 and of the decision of 22 January 2020 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders JS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R. H. Investment (MALLE)

(Case T-188/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 84/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Jörg Lück (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: L. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: R. H. Investment UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: M. Metzner and M. Scheiner, lawyers)

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jörg Lück to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Daw v EUIPO (Muresko)

(Case T-32/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - EU word mark Muresko - Earlier national word marks Muresko - Claim for seniority of earlier national after registration of the EU trade mark marks - Articles 39 and 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Registration of earlier national marks having expired on the day of the claim)

(2021/C 471/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 (Case R 1686/2020-4), concerning a claim for seniority of identical earlier national marks for the EU word mark Muresko No 15465719.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Daw SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)

(Case T-116/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark WILD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 128/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zoebisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Manea and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 (Case R 932/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Maternus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)

(Case T-160/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Word mark APIRETAL - Declaration of revocation - No genuine use - No proper reasons for non-use - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 119/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ingrid Malpricht (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2021 (Case R 1004/2020 4), relating to revocation proceedings between Ms Malpricht and Laboratorios Ern.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Stryker v EUIPO (RUGGED)

(Case T-204/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark RUGGED - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Competence of the Board of Appeal - Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stryker Corp. (Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, I. Junkar and B. Worbes, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2021 (Case R 370/2020-5), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark RUGGED.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Stryker Corp. is to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X)

(Case T-198/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark CODE-X - Earlier national word and figurative marks Cody’s - Earlier international figurative mark Cody’s - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ancor Group GmbH (Igersheim, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth and W. Berlit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Cody’s Drinks International GmbH (Bremen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2021 (Case R 208/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Cody’s Drinks International and Ancor Group.

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 4 February 2021 (Case R 208/2020-5);

2. Rejects the opposition brought by Cody’s Drinks International GmbH;

3. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-120/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agent)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 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 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Éric Ruhorimbere to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background I)

(Case T-277/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU pattern mark - Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background I - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 213/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 (Case R 1895/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a pattern sign representing three-pointed stars on a black background I as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs NV v EUIPO — Haufe-Lexware (TAXMARC)

(Case T-619/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark TAXMARC - Prior EU figurative mark TAXMAN - Suspension of proceedings - Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2022/C 266/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Stoop, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2021 (Case R 131/2021-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Haufe-Lexware GmbH Co. KG and the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 July 2021 (Case R 131/2021-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs NV for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court;

3. Orders Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the Court.

(1) OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Anferlux-Electrodomésticos (SmartThinQ)

(Case T-181/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SmartThinQ - Earlier national figurative mark SMARTTHING - Relative ground 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) - Translation of the list of goods covered by the earlier mark into the language of the proceedings - Genuine use of the earlier mark)

(2022/C 244/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Anferlux-Electrodomésticos, Lda (Vila Nova de Monsarros, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2021 (Case R 1657/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Anferlux-Electrodomésticos and LG Electronics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LG Electronics, Inc., to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.