ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — WL v ERCEA

(Case T-493/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Administrative inquiry - Extension of a probationary period - Preparatory act - Dismissal - Notification of dismissal by email - Time for bringing a complaint - Starting point - Inadmissibility - Compliance with essential procedural requirements - Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period - Breach of the relationship of trust - Liability - Request for a hearing made in the application but not reiterated in accordance with Article 106(2) of the Rules of Procedure))

(2019/C 44/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: WL (represented by: F. Elia, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (represented by: F. Sgritta and M. Chacón Mohedano, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU, first, for annulment of the decision of the ERCEA to dismiss the applicant orally on 10 January 2017, with immediate restoration of the employment relationship, and for an order that the ERCEA pay all remuneration that has accrued in the interim, second, for annulment of the decision of the ERCEA of 28 October 2016 to extend the applicant’s probationary period and for a finding that that probationary period had ended as of 1 November 2016, third, for annulment of the measures taken pursuant to an administrative inquiry by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) and of the inquiry report dated 7 November 2016 and for an order that the ERCEA delete that inquiry from the Human Resource Management information system and from any other database of the EU institutions, fourth, for annulment of the dismissal decision of the ERCEA dated 22 December 2016, as notified to the applicant on 24 January 2017, immediate restoration of the employment relationship and an order that the ERCEA pay damages in compensation for harm suffered in the form of remuneration that has accrued between the date of dismissal and the date of delivery of the judgment or, failing reintegration into employment, an order that the ERCEA pay damages for loss of earnings until the date stipulated for the end of the contract, which amounts to EUR 39 000, and, fifth, in any event, for an order that the ERCEA pay the applicant in the amount of EUR 300 000 in damages or any other amount, greater or lesser, as the Court may deem appropriate, on account of the serious damage to the applicant’s image and to her personal and professional reputation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders WL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Arca Capital Bohemia v Commission

(Case T-441/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of third parties - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of confidentiality - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest))

(2019/C 72/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arca Capital Bohemia a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Nedelka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s response of 13 March 2017 to the initial application for access to documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid and, secondly, of Commission Decision C(2017) 3129 final of 4 May 2017 refusing to grant such access.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Arca Capital Bohemia a.s. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 11. December 2018 — BTB Holding Investments and Duferco Participations Holding v Commission

(Case T-100/17) (1)

((State aid - Steel industry - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the iron and steel industry - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test))

(2019/C 72/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BTB Holding Investments SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Duferco Participations Holding SA (Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, M. Favart and Q. Declève, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Luengo and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: A. Verheyden and P. Laconte, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2041 of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) granted by Belgium to Duferco (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de)

(Case T-801/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 93/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 524/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of the position of a bottle closure)

(Case T-489/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark representing a bottle closure - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 93/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Windspiel Manufaktur GmbH (Daun, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Mensing, M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 (Case R 1374/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a bottle closure as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Windspiel Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR)

(Case T-215/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative trade mark PEAR - Earlier EU figurative trade mark depicting an apple - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pear Technologies Ltd (Macao, China) (represented by: J. Coldham, Solicitor, and E. Himsworth QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 (Case R 860/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Technologies.

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 18 January 2017 (Case R 860/2016-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies Ltd;

3. Orders Apple Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies.

(1) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Karp v Parliament

(Case T-580/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Classification - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Premature complaint - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility - Autonomy of remedies - Non-renewal of a contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff covering maternity leave - Obligation to state reasons - Successive fixed-term contracts - Abuse of rights - Right to be heard - Liability))

(2019/C 103/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lambers and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the European Parliament’s decision classifying the applicant in function group II, at grade 4, step 1, under the contract as a member of the contract staff signed on 12 May 2016 and which expired on 11 November 2016 and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered on account of his classification and the non-renewal of his contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Kevin Karp to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Parfümerie Akzente v EUIPO (GlamHair)

(Case T-787/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark GlamHair - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 164/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Parfümerie Akzente GmbH (Pfedelbach, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 82/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign GlamHair as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Parfümerie Akzente GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-366/17) (1)

(ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Assessment of whether a major project is consistent with the priorities of the operational programme - Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Time limit exceeded)

(2019/C 131/47)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, A. Kyratsou and M. Siekierzyńska, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1904 final of 24 March 2017 refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Starting production of a next-generation diesel engine by Volkswagen Motor Polska’ in the context of the Priority Axis IV of operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-229/17) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 - Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 - Construction products - Harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 187/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze and J. Möller, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by M. Winkelmüller, F. van Schewick and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by G. Zavvos and C. Hermes, and subsequently by C. Hermes and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of, first, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/133 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 21, p. 113), second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/145 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sport areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 22, p. 62), third, the Commission communication of 10 March 2017 in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2017 C 76, p. 32), in so far as it refers to harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006, fourth, the Commission Communication of 11 August 2017 in the framework of the implementation of Regulation No 305/2011 (OJ 2017 C 267, p. 16), in so far as it refers to harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006, fifth, the Commission Communication of 15 December 2017 in the framework of the implementation of Regulation No 305/2011 (OJ 2017 C 435, p. 41), in so far as it concerns harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006, and, sixth, the Commission Communication of 9 March 2018 in the framework of the implementation of Regulation No 305/2011 (OJ 2018 C 92, p. 139), in so far as it refers to harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

3) Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)

(Case T-804/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two facing arches - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 172/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by D. Hanf and D. Walicka and subsequently by D. Hanf and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2017 (Case R 1887/2016-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two facing arches as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Commune de Fessenheim and Others v Commission

(Case T-751/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Letter sent by the Commission to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the EDF Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)

(2019/C 230/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Commune de Fessenheim (France), Communauté de communes Pays Rhin-Brisach (Volgelsheim, France), Conseil départemental du Haut-Rhin (Colmar, France), Conseil régional Grand Est Alsace Champagne-Ardenne Lorraine (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: G. de Rubercy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, B. Fodda and J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission Decision of 18 October 2017 refusing access to the letter which it sent to the French authorities on 22 March 2017 regarding the draft protocol for the compensation of the Électricité de France (EDF) Group in respect of the closure of the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commune de Fessenheim, the communauté de communes Pays Rhin-Brisach, the conseil départemental du Haut-Rhin and the conseil régional Grand Est Alsace Champagne-Ardenne Lorraine to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-49/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Financial corrections - Meaning of ‘producer’ - Investments made outside the premises of a producer organisation - Checks carried out before the approval of an operational programme - Check carried out in the authorisation of expenditure - Single financial correction - Flat-rate financial correction - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons)

(2019/C 213/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Spain (represented initially by V. Ester Casas, abogado del Estado, and subsequently by S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and M. Morales Puerta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016, 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 2016, L 312, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes)

(Case T-307/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes - Absolute grounds for invalidity - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Form of use unable to be taken into account - Form that differs from the form under which the mark has been registered by significant variations - Inversion of the colour scheme)

(2019/C 288/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde; Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1515/2016-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Shoe Branding Europe and Adidas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders adidas AG to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA;

3. Orders Marques to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst v EUIPO — IOS Finance EFC (IOS FINANCE)

(Case T-583/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark IOS FINANCE - Earlier national figurative mark EOS - 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))

(2019/C 263/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Sorg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: IOS Finance EFC, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2017 (Case R 2262/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst and IOS Finance EFC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.