ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Atesos medical and Others v Commission

(Case T-764/21 R)

(Interim relief - Medical devices - Directive 93/42/EEC - Regulation (EU) 2017/745 - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 213/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Atesos medical AG (Aarau, Switzerland) and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, B. Natens and I. Willemyns, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, C. Hödlmayr and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the unpublished Commission decision, the date of which is unknown, which provides for the expiry of the designation of Schweizerische Vereinigung für Qualitäts- und Management Systeme as a conformity assessment body for medical devices under Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), and its removal from the database of notified and designated bodies with effect from 28 September 2021.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover)

(Case T-114/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 198/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2020 (Case R 720/2020-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign doglover as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Order of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-154/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Confirmatory application made prematurely - Article 7 of Regulation No 1049/2001 - No challengeable act - Express refusal to grant access - Modification of the application - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 266/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina, K. Herrmann and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the alleged decision refusing him access to certain documents, which decision arose implicitly on 19 March 2021 in the absence of a response from the European Commission within the time period prescribed to his confirmatory application and, following the modification of the form of order sought, annulment of the express decision of the Commission of 9 June 2021, by way of which it partially refused to grant the applicant access to certain documents.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the request to modify the application, and the Commission is ordered to bear its own costs relating to the application.

(1) OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA NETWORKS)

(Case T-345/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and J. F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aruba SpA (Ponte San Pietro, Italy) (represented by: N. Scardaccione, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2021 (Case R 1473/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aruba and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development.

Operative part of the order

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

2. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Aruba SpA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 12 May 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-661/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Impact assessment report and other documents relating to a legislative initiative in the environmental field - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, ClientEarth AISBL, seeks annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 30 July 2021 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to several documents relating to deforestation and forest degradation.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Commission is to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Girardi v EUIPO

(Case T-497/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Representation before EUIPO - Notification of a deficiency in the power to act as a representative before EUIPO - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 284/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giovanna Paola Girardi (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Predonzani and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the act by which the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) notified her, on 14 June 2021, of a deficiency in an application for a declaration of invalidity which she had filed under reference 000050057 C, and of any other file in which the applicant or right holder represented by her has their permanent residence outside the European Union and, secondly, a declaration that Annex 1 to Section 5 of Part A of the Guidelines for examination of European Union trade marks of EUIPO is unlawful in so far as that annex relates to professional representation by Spanish lawyers before the Office.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is to bear its own costs and pay those of Ms Giovanna Paola Girardi, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief in Case T-497/21 R.

(1) OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 8 September 2022 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO — Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)

(Case T-625/21) (1)

(2022/C 408/60)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Order of the General Court of 12 July 2022 — LW v Commission

(Case T-728/21) (1)

(Civil service - Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 340/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Hohenecker and T. Lilamand, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2021 by which she was reassigned to another post within the same unit and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 July 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union against that decision and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the order

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

2. LW shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2022 — NT v EMA

(Case T-806/21) (1)

(2023/C 45/63)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Primagra and Mlékárna Hlinsko v Commission

(Joined Cases T-101/21 and T-213/21) (1)

(Actions for annulment - European Structural and Investment Funds - ERDF - Cohesion Fund - ESF - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Letter concerning the follow-up of recommendations set out by the Commission in its audit of alleged conflicts of interest - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/63)

Language of the cases: English

Parties

Applicants: Primagra a.s. (Milín, Czech Republic) (Case T-101/21), Mlékárna Hlinsko a.s. (Hlinsko, Czech Republic) (Case T-213/21) (represented by: S. Sobolová and O. Billard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hradil and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the letter of the European Commission of 22 October 2020 addressed to the Czech Republic, entitled ‘Follow up of audit No REGC414CZ0133’ and bearing the reference Ares(2020) 5759350.

Operative part of the order

1. The actions are dismissed.

2. Primagra a.s. and Mlékárna Hlinsko a.s. shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.
Order of the President of the General Court of 27 June 2022 — Usmanov v Council

(Case T-237/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in respect of Russian actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency - Balancing of interests)

(2022/C 318/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alisher Usmanov (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in substance, the suspension of the operation of, in the first place, two acts by which the criteria for inclusion in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures on account of their involvement in actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine were amended and, in the second place, two acts by which his name was added to that list. In particular, the applicant seeks, first, principally, suspension of the operation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1), in so far as that act concerns him, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 58, p. 1), in so far as that act concerns him, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1); secondly, in the alternative, the suspension of the operation of Decision 2022/337 in so far as that act concerns him, of Implementing Regulation 2022/336 in so far as that act concerns him, of Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Decision 2022/329 and of Article 1(1)(f) and (g) of Regulation 2022/330; and, thirdly, that the Council of the European Union be ordered to pay him the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the costs which he has had to incur in the defence of his interests.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 May 2022 — Conserve Italia and Conserves France v Commission

(Case T-59/22 R)

(Interim relief - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for preserved vegetables - Decision imposing a fine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 266/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Conserve Italia — Consorzio Italiano fra cooperative agricole Soc. coop. agr. (San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy) and Conserves France (Tarascon, France) (represented by: L. Di Via, M. Petite, L. Tresoldi and E. Belli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Baches Opi, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2021) 8259 final of 19 November 2021 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)

(Case T-340/22) (1)

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

(2022/C 418/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Etablissements Nicolas (Thiais, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: St. Nicolaus a.s. (Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 March 2022 (Case R 1780/2020-4).

Operative part of the order

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

2. Etablissements Nicolas shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 14 July 2022 — Dehaen v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-158/22) (1)

(2022/C 340/81)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.
Order of the General Court of 7 November 2022 — Ortega Montero v Parliament

(Case T-161/22) (1)

(Civil service - Staff representation - Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Staff Committee of Parliament - Appointment of staff representatives to bodies established under the Staff Regulations and to administrative bodies - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Failure to take a measure required by the Staff Regulations - Prior complaint to the appointing authority - Time limits for instituting proceedings - Out of time - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 24/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria Del Carmen Ortega Montero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment, (i), of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 20 May 2021 by which the Secretary General rejected her complaint of 19 January 2021, (ii), of the decision of 21 December 2021 by which the Secretary General of Parliament rejected her second complaint of 18 August 2021, (iii), of the amendment to Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure of the Staff Committee of Parliament adopted on 10 November 2020 and,(iv), of the Staff Committee vote of 10 November 2020 on the replacement of a representative of that committee nominated to a selection board and of all the acts and decisions taken under the amended Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure of that committee, including the results of the vote, also of 10 November 2020, on the appointment of its representatives to various committees and delegations.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Ms Maria Del Carmen Ortega Montero shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Collard v ID

(Case T-53/22) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group - Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gilbert Collard (Vauvert, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendant: Identity and Democracy political group (ID) (represented by: J. Bosquet, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 22 and 25 January 2022 by which he was suspended and then excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID).

2. The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Collard v Parliament and ID (T-53/22, not published, EU:T:2022:463).

(1) OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Costs – Costs caused unreasonably or vexatiously

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(3), second subpara.)

The second subparagraph of Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance must be applied and an official ordered to pay all the costs of the proceedings where he has put forward particularly unreasonable challenges largely based on conjecture and insinuations which are not relevant to the subject-matter of the action or any other pleadings, and from which certain passages have had to be removed because of their defamatory nature.

(see paras 81-82)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)

10 October 2007

Case F-107/06

Michael Berrisford

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Promotion year 2005 – Award of promotion points – General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Berrisford seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision not to include his name in the list of officials promoted to A*13 in the 2005 promotion procedure, as published in Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005, together with an order for the Commission to pay him the sum of EUR 25 000 by way of damages.

Held: The decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to A*13 in the 2005 promotion procedure is annulled. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits





Where the appointing authority considers the comparative merits of candidates for promotion pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, it must examine all the relevant factors in each application carefully and impartially.

The fact that an official has been put forward for promotion, unsuccessfully, in previous promotion procedures constitutes a factor which must be taken into account. That fact is a relevant aspect of merit, provided that the official concerned has not lost merit in the interim.

The fact that such factors must be taken into account is confirmed by the general implementing provisions adopted by the Commission for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, which provide that promotion must be awarded after comparison of individual merits assessed over a period of time.

Failure to take into consideration previous proposals for promotion could also lead to different situations being treated in the same way.

If it proved that the criteria adopted by the Promotion Committee for awarding promotion points prevented that particular aspect of the merits from being taken into account, it would be the duty of the appointing authority, which is required to comply with the rules on entitlement to advance to a higher level, to refrain from applying those criteria.

(see paras 67-68, 71-76, 103)

See:

C-269/90 Technische Universität München [1991] ECR I‑5469, para. 14

T-169/89 Frederiksen v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑1403, para. 69; T-30/04 Sena v EASA [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑113 and II‑519, para. 80; T-132/03 Casini v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑253 and II‑1169, para. 69; T-432/04 Parlante v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 97