ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-721/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2018 — Luxottica Group v EUIPO — Chen (BeyBeni) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BeyBeni — Earlier national figurative mark Ray-Ban — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2018 — Luxottica Group v EUIPO — Chen (BeyBeni)

(Case T-721/16) ( 1 )

‛(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BeyBeni — Earlier national figurative mark Ray-Ban — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Luxottica Group SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and I. Aparicio Martínez, lawyers)

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: Xian Chen (Wenzhou, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 (Case R 675/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Luxottica Group and Mr Chen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. The decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 June 2016 (Case R 675/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Luxottica Group SpA and Xian Chen, is annulled;

2. EUIPO is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.
Case T-739/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym v EUIPO — Hunter Douglas Holding (COSIMO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark COSIMO — Earlier EU word mark COSIFLOR — 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) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym v EUIPO — Hunter Douglas Holding (COSIMO)

(Case T-739/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark COSIMO — Earlier EU word mark COSIFLOR — 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) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym sp.j. (Koszalin, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hunter Douglas Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Sonntag, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2016 (Case R 2364/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hunter Douglas Holding and Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym sp.j. to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Case T-210/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Lukash v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Failure to fulfil criteria for listing — Error of fact — Error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Right to an effective remedy — Right to property)

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Lukash v Council

(Case T-210/16) ( 1 )

‛(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Failure to fulfil criteria for listing — Error of fact — Error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Right to an effective remedy — Right to property)’

Parties

Applicant: Olena Lukash (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

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

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of (i) Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (JO 2015 L 62, p. 1) (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/876 of 5 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (JO 2015 L 142, p. 30) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/869 of 5 June 2015 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 142, p. 1) (iv) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), and (v) Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was included or maintained in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Olena Lukash to bear the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — HG v Commission

(Case T-693/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Posting to a third country - Lodging provided by the administration - Disciplinary penalty - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Composition of the panel of judges which delivered the judgment at first instance - Procedure for appointment of a judge to the Civil Service Tribunal - Tribunal established by law - Principle of the lawful judge))

(2018/C 364/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party: European Commission (represented initially by G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, subsequently by G. Berscheid and T. Bohr, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F-149/15, EU:F:2016:155), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F-149/15);

2. Refers the case back to a chamber of the General Court other than the one which has ruled on the present appeal;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Pereira v Commission

(Case T-606/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Non-promotion - 2015 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 - Obligation to state reasons - Comparative merits - Seniority in the grade - Accumulated merits - Manifest errors of assessment))

(2018/C 328/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Felismino Pereira (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, then N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid initially, then G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant during the 2015 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decision rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Felismino Pereira to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-36/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission

(Case T-43/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Concentrations - Retail market for mobile telecommunications services and market for wholesale access and call origination in Germany - Acquisition of E-plus by Telefónica Deutschland - Decision declaring the concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Implementation of the non-MNO component of the Final Commitments - Acts against which no action may be brought - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 1&1 Telecom GmbH (Montabaur (Germany)) (represented by: J.O. Murach, lawyer, and P. Alexiadis, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, M. Farley and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG, (Munich, Germany), (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund, B. Herbers and K. Baubkus, lawyers

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s alleged decision contained IN the letter of 19 November 2015 in relation to the implementation of the non-MNO remedy provided for in the Final Commitments made obligatory by Commission Decision C(2014) 4443 final of 2 July 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement, subject to compliance with certain commitments (Case M.7018 Telefónica Deutschland v E-plus).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders 1&1 Telecom GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission and by Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG, with the exception of those incurred by the Commission in the context of the plea of inadmissibility rejected by the order of 22 June 2016, 1&1 Telecom v Commission (T-43/16, EU:T:2016:402).

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HD v Parliament

(Case T-604/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Household allowance - Education allowance - Dependent child allowance - Conditions for granting - Deduction of an allowance of like nature received from another source - Recovery of undue payments - Decisions to end entitlement to certain allowances - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 399/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HD (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decisions of the Parliament of 21 September, 5 October, 27 November and 15 December 2015 recovering the amounts alleged to have been unduly received by the applicant in respect of the education allowance, secondly, of the decisions of the Parliament of 5, 13, 23 October, of the 5, 11 and 12 November 2015 recovering the amounts alleged to have been unduly received by her in respect of education allowance and dependent child allowance and depriving her of her right to household allowance and, thirdly, ‘in so far as necessary’, of the decision of 21 April 2016 rejecting her complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders HD to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-34/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING)

(Case T-718/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SPINNING - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 16/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o., formerly Aerospinning Master Franchising, Ltd., s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Labalestra, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Aerospinning Master Franchising and Mad Dogg Athletics.

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 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 28 and the services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc.;

3. Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Terna v Commission

(Case T-387/16) (1)

((Financial aid - Projects of common interest in the field of trans-European energy networks - Determination of the final amount of the financial aid - Audit report identifying irregularities - Ineligible costs - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality))

(2018/C 436/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Police, L. Di Via, F. Degni, F. Covone and D. Carria, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, L. Di Paolo, A. Tokár and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letters of 6 July 2015, 23 May and 14 June 2016 of the Commission relating to certain costs incurred in the context of two projects in the field of trans-European energy networks (Projects 209-E255/09-ENER/09/TEN-E-S 12.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S 07.91403) following the grant of financial aid by the Commission to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Colin v Commission

(Case T-614/16) (1)

((Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Conditions of admission - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Diploma - Professional experience))

(2019/C 72/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Caroline Colin (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented initially by N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis and subsequently by N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of 18 February 2015 of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AST-SC/01/14, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list from which to recruit officials in the institutions of the European Union, secondly, of the decision of 17 September 2015, of the same selection board, to reject her request for a review and, thirdly, of the Commission’s rejection decision of 12 May 2016 in response to the applicant’s complaint against the selection board’s decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 17 September 2015 by which the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AST-SC/01/14 confirmed, after review, that the applicant could not be included in the reserve list from that competition;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case F-44/16 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA

(Case T-329/16) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Orphan medicinal products - Decision withdrawing the designation of Elotuzumab as an orphan medicinal product - Decision that the designation criteria were no longer met - Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Empliciti (Elotuzumab) - Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Article 5(8) of Regulation No 141/2000 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 44/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma EEIG (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert and B. Van Vooren, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and K. Petersen, acting as Agents) and European Medicines Agency (represented by: N. Rampal Olmedo, M. Tovar Gomis, T. Jabłoński and S. Drosos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of an act adopted by the Commission removing Elotuzumab from the Community Register of orphan medicinal products for human use and/or of a possible act adopted by the Commission or the EMA determining that Elotuzumab no longer met the criteria for designation as an orphan medicinal product when the marketing authorisation was granted for the medicinal product Empliciti (Elotuzumab) under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FZ and Others v Commission

(Case T-540/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Types of posts - Transitional rules on grading in the types of posts - Article 30 of Annexe XIII to the Staff Regulations - Administrators in transition (AD 13) - Administrators (AD 12) - Promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations only allowed within the career streams corresponding to the type of post occupied - Access to the type of post ‘Head of Unit’ or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ exclusively in accordance with the procedure under Article 4 and Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Concept of an act adversely affecting an official - Confirmatory act - Lis pendens - Compliance with the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 93/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FZ, and the 8 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, subsequently by G. Gattinara and C. Berardis-Kayser and finally by G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by N. Chemaï and M. Dean, subsequently by L. Deneys, J. Steele and J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agents); and the Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and M. Veiga and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions by which the appointing authority of that institution classified the applicants in the ‘administrator in transition’ or ‘administrator’ types of post, with the consequence that, with effect from 1 January 2014, they were no longer eligible for promotion to the next higher grade.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible, in so far as it is brought by FZ and the eight officials of the European Commission, other than GL, whose names are listed in the annex.

2. Dismisses the action as inadmissible and, in any event, as unfounded in so far as it is brought by GL.

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by the officials whose names are listed in the annex.

4. Orders FZ and the other officials whose names are listed in the annex to bear half of their own costs.

5. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 96, 23.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-18/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-53/16) (1)

((State aid - Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))

(2019/C 82/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, S. Petrova and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/633 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33961 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Veolia Transport Aéroport de Nîmes, Ryanair Limited and Airport Marketing Services Limited (OJ 2016 L 113, p. 32).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.