ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17, 67-69)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

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

(see para. 18)
Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions — Definition of those requirements by the Member States — Obligation — Scope

(Council Regulation No 73/2009, Art. 6(1) and Annex III; Commission Regulation No 1122/2009, Art. 34(3))

(see paras 65-74)
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001

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

(see paras 20, 59, 60)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 –

FV v Council

(Case T‑27/18 RENV)

(Civil service — Officials — Staff report — 2013 appraisal exercise — Interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

1. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for annulment of staff report — Official whose service has terminated — Interest in bringing proceedings retained — Condition (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 43, 90 and 91) (see paras 42, 43)

2. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Appraisal less favourable than the previous appraisal — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 43) (see paras 60-63, 68)

3. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Discretion of the assessors — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 43) (see paras 81-83)

4. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Drawing up — Existence of psychological harassment — Unlawfulness of the staff report — Need for a link between the harassment and the negative assessments contained in the report (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 12a, 43, 90 and 91) (see paras 147, 148, 153)

5. Officials — Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope — Taking into consideration of official’s interests (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 24) (see para. 162)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2013.

Operative part

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders FV to pay the costs incurred in Case F‑40/15 and those incurred in the present proceedings on referral;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 November 2019 –

Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern)

(Case T‑669/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 44)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22-24)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Figurative mark consisting of the two-dimensional representation of a product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria — Position mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28, 31)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Figurative mark representing four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 36, 37, 48)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria — Perception of the trade mark by the relevant public — Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 35)

7. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO's previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 47)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2018 (Case R 2059/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 –

Puma v EUIPO — Destilerias MG (MG PUMA)

(Case T‑500/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark MG PUMA — Earlier EU word mark GINMG — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 21, 22)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks MG PUMA and GINMG (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 44)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 (Case R 2019/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Destilerias MG and Puma.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 –

El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Lloyd Shoes (LLOYD)

(Case T‑729/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark LLOYD — Earlier EU figurative mark LLOYD’S — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 46, 51, 52)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks LLOYD and LLOYD’S (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 41-44, 53, 54)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 40)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 (Case R 2385/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Lloyd Shoes.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 –

6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ADPepper)

(Case T‑668/18)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Word mark ADPepper — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Word mark ADPepper (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 26, 51, 69, 121)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject matter and scope of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 33-36)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 43, 63, 67)

4. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 73-77, 85, 88, 89, 99,100)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 (Case R 840/2017-1), relating to revocation proceedings between 6Minutes Media and ad pepper media International.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use — Genuine use — Meaning — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22)

(see paras 20, 22-26, 71, 72, 75)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

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

(see paras 24, 25, 30)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 September 2020 –

Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v EACEA

(Case T‑408/18)

(Arbitration clause – Grant agreement entered into under Erasmus Mundus action programme No 3 for the promotion of higher education – Grant agreement entered into under the programme for lifelong learning – Eligible costs – Debit notes – Repayment of part of the sums advanced – Contractual liability)

1. Judicial proceedings – General Court seised under an arbitration clause – Arbitration clause – Concept (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 34-36, 38, 39, 44-47, 49)

2. EU budget – EU financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Financing covering only expenses actually incurred – Demonstration that the costs have actually been incurred – Absence – Ineligible costs (Art. 317 TFEU) (see paras 78, 79)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking, first, a declaration that the debts set out in debit notes with reference numbers 3241804682 and 3241804913 of 9 and 16 April 2018 issued by the EACEA against the applicant represent eligible costs of EUR 28 976.83 and EUR 77 169.78, respectively, and, second, an order that the EACEA repay those sums to the applicant, together with default interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2020 – BCPE and Others v ECB

(Case T‑146/18)

(Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments – Tasks entrusted to the ECB – Specific supervision powers of the ECB – Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital – Absence of individual examination)

1. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 575/2013, Arts 26(1), first subpara., (a) to (f) and 36; Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Art. 4(1)(f)) (see paras 46-51)

2. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank – Obligation to carry out an individual prudential examination (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 575/2013, Art. 92(3); Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Arts 4(1)(f) and 16(1)(c) and (2)(d)) (see paras 52, 66-73)

3. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank – Funds that may be subject to a measure requiring the implementation of a policy or special treatment – Meaning – Irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) – Included (Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Arts 4(1)(f) and 16(1)(c) and (2)(d)) (see paras 60, 61)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBPC‑22 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 4 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraphs 3.4 to 3.7 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBPC‑22 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 February 2021 –

Şanli v Council

(Case T‑585/18)

(Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism – Freezing of funds – List of persons, groups and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Action for annulment and compensation – Failure to comply with formal requirements – Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure – Inadmissibility)

1. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Identification of the contested measure – Lack of formal identification in the application – Identification by means of the context thereof – Admissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084; Council Regulation 2018/1071) (see paras 28, 30, 31, 33, 36)

2. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Abstract statement – Obligation, for the Council or the Union Courts, to reconstitute the applicant’s pleas in law and arguments – None – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 38, 43, 44)

3. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Claim for compensation formulated for the first time in the reply – Inadmissibility (Arts 268 and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d) and (e)) (see paras 48-51)

Re:

First, action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 of 30 July 2018 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2018/475 (OJ 2018 L 194, p.144), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1071 of 30 July 2018 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/468 (OJ 2018 L 194, p. 23), in so far as they concern the applicant and, second, action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm suffered as a result of the unlawfulness of those measures.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Final termination of service – Decommitment – Need for a specific legal basis – No obligation for the Bank to grant a request to benefit from a decommitment measure

(Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank)

(see paras 34, 35)
29

As regards the Commission’s argument concerning the possibility of applying Article 25 of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 by analogy, it should be noted that that article governs the possibility of making an ‘announcement’ before carrying out an on-the-spot check. As argued by the Czech Republic, the term ‘announcement’ means that the beneficiary subject to the check is notified in advance of the check. An announcement is therefore made prior to the actual date of the check, as is clearly indicated by the wording of that provision, according to which ‘on-the-spot checks may be announced’. Moreover, the announcement must normally indicate to the beneficiary the date of the check and the elements that will be subject to that check in order to secure the prior assistance of that beneficiary, where such assistance is necessary in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the check (see also paragraphs 37 and 38 below). However, the mere fact of having been subject to a first check does not, as such, inform that beneficiary that he will necessarily be subject to additional checks (since, depending on the circumstances, a single check may be sufficient), nor does it inform him of the exact date of the subsequent checks or of the elements to be verified when those checks are carried out. Therefore, even assuming that notice could be ‘implied’, a first check cannot automatically be treated as ‘implied notice’ capable of triggering the start of one of the periods of notice provided for in Article 25.
2

Article 32(5) of that regulation, concerning ‘Provisions specific to the EAGF’, reads: ‘5. If recovery has not taken place within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years where recovery action is taken in the national courts, 50% of the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50% by the Community budget. Member States shall indicate separately in the summary report referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 the amounts not recovered within the time limits specified in the first subparagraph of this paragraph. The distribution of the financial burden of non-recovery in line with the first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the requirement that the Member State concerned must pursue recovery procedures in compliance with Article 9(1) of this Regulation. Fifty percent of the amounts recovered in this way shall be credited to the EAGF, after application of the deduction provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article. Where, in the context of the recovery procedure, the absence of any irregularity is recorded by an administrative or legal instrument of a definitive nature, the Member State concerned shall declare as expenditure to the EAGF the financial burden borne by it under the first subparagraph. However, if for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, recovery could not take place within the time limits specified in the first subparagraph, and the amount to be recovered exceeds EUR 1 million, the Commission may, at the request of the Member State, extend the time limits by a maximum of 50% of the initial time limits.’