ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-574/16: Judgment of the General Court of HK v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Pension for surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Condition in respect of duration of marriage — Non-marital partnership — First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)

Judgment of the General Court of HK v Commission

(Case T-574/16) ( 1 )

‛(Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Pension for surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Condition in respect of duration of marriage — Non-marital partnership — First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)’

Parties

Applicant: HK (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

ACTION under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension and, in so far as is necessary, of the Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint and, secondly, seeking compensation for the material and non-material allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders HK to pay the costs;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-151/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-228/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2018 — Haverkamp IP v EUIPO — Sissel (Pebble beach surface pattern) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing a pebble beach surface pattern — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2018 — Haverkamp IP v EUIPO — Sissel (Pebble beach surface pattern)

(Case T-228/16) ( 1 )

‛(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing a pebble beach surface pattern — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)’

Parties

Applicant: Haverkamp IP GmbH (Kindberg, Austria), authorised to replace Reinhard Haverkamp (represented by: A. Waldenberger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sissel GmbH (Bad Dürkheim, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 (Case R 2619/2014-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Sissel and Mr Haverkamp

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Haverkamp IP GmbH to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Case T-340/16: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Flatworld Solutions v EUIPO — Outsource Professional Services (Outsource 2 India) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union figurative mark Outsource 2 India — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Flatworld Solutions v EUIPO — Outsource Professional Services (Outsource 2 India)

(Case T-340/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union figurative mark Outsource 2 India — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)’

Parties

Applicant: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd (Bangalore, India) (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, lawyers)

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

Intervener: Outsource Professional Services Ltd (Friedrichshafen, Germany), given leave to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented by: A. Kempter, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 (Case R 611/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Flatworld Solutions and Outsource2India.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 April 2016 (Case R 611/2015-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd;

3. Orders Outsource Professional Services Ltd to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Banque postale v ECB

(Case T-733/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 352/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: La Banque postale (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Guillaume and L. Coudray, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Central Bank Decision ECB/SSM/2016-96950066U5XAAIRCPA78/16 of 24 August 2016, taken pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision ECB/SSM/2016-96950066U5XAAIRCPA78/16 of 24 August 2016;

2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Société générale v ECB

(Case T-757/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 328/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: initially A. Gosset-Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, then A. Gosset-Grainville, P. Kupka and M. Trabucchi and finally A. Gosset-Grainville and M. Trabucchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/72 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/72 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016;

2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Mass Response Service v Commission

(Case T-885/16) (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 427/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mass Response Service GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, in particular, annulment of the alleged decisions of the Commission contained in the emails of 24 and 29 October 2016 relating 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 COMP/M.7018 Telefónica Deutschland v E-plus).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Declares that there is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG and Drillisch AG.

3. Orders Mass Response Service GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. Orders Telefónica Deutschland Holding to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

5. Orders Drillisch AG to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Barosso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-702/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Contractual staff - Pensions - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of pension rights acquired previously under national schemes - Harm resulting from the allegedly insufficient information provided to the appellants by the AECC when communicating proposals concerning additional pensionable years concerning those appellants - Claim for compensation dismissed at first instance - Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations - Material harm))

(2018/C 392/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: José Barosso Truta (Bofferdange, Luxembourg), Marc Forli (Lexy, France), Calogero Galante (Aix-sur-Cloie, Belgium), Bernard Gradel (Konacker, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016, Barosso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union (F-126/15, EU:F:2016:159), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the appellants to bear a quarter of their costs;

3. Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the appellants.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — PO and Others v EEAS

(Case T-729/16) (1)

(Civil Service - EEAS - Remuneration - Officials posted to the Beijing delegation - Family allowance - Education allowance for the school year 2015/2016 - Second sentence of Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - Exceedance of the statutory ceiling for third countries - Decision to cap the reimbursement of education costs in exceptional circumstances - General Implementing Provisions)

(2019/C 4/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: PO, PP, PQ and PR (represented initially by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, and subsequently by: N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers).

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the EEAS not to reimburse the applicants, in respect of the school year 2015/2016, for the education costs exceeding an amount corresponding to the statutory ceiling for third countries (six times the basic ceiling) increased by EUR 10 000 (EUR 27 788,40 in total).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PO, PP, PQ and PR to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European External Action Service (EEAS).

(1) OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission

(Case T-79/16) (1)

((State aid - Aid scheme relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination stage - No formal investigation procedure - Locus standi - Notion of interested party - Admissibility - Infringement of procedural rights - Serious difficulties - Substantial effect on the competitive position of the competing undertakings))

(2018/C 436/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters (Hoenderloo, Netherlands) and 21 other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I to the judgment (represented by: H. Viaene, D. Gillet and T. Ruys, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (‘s-Graveland, Netherlands) and 12 other interveners whose names are listed in Annex II to the judgment (represented by: P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land, a summary of which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2006 C 9, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I;

3. Orders Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and the other interveners whose names are listed in Annex II to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Groupe Canal + v Commission

(Case T-873/16) (1)

((Competition - Cartels - TV distribution - Decision making commitments binding - Territorial exclusivity - Preliminary evaluation - Assignment of third-party contractual rights - Proportionality))

(2019/C 72/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Groupe Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, P. Gassenbach and O. de Juvigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, C. Urraca Caviedes and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by D. Colas, J. Bousin, E. de Moustier and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents); Union des producteurs de cinéma (UPC) (Paris, France) (represented by: É. Lauvaux, lawyer); C More Entertainment AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: L. Johansson and A. Acedevo, lawyers); and European Film Agency Directors — EFADs (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Sasserath, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 26 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case AT. 40023 — Cross-border access to pay TV), which makes the commitments offered by Paramount Pictures International Ltd and Viacom Inc. legally binding, in the context of licence agreements on audiovisual content that they concluded with Sky UK Ltd and Sky plc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Groupe Canal + to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, excluding those incurred in relation to the intervention of the French Republic, the European Film Agency Directors — EFADs, the Union des producteurs de cinéma (UPC) and C More Entertainment AB, and by the Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC);

3. Orders the French Republic, EFADs, UPC and C More Entertainment AB to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission in relation to their interventions.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Di Bernardo v Commission

(Case T-811/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Obligation to state reasons - Professional experience - Liability))

(2019/C 44/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Danilo Di Bernardo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 10 August 2016 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 10 August 2016 not to include Mr Danilo Di Bernardo on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FV v Council

(Case T-750/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Leave in the interests of the service - Equal treatment - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Manifest error of assessment - Liability))

(2019/C 93/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FV (represented by: initially, L. Levi and A. Tymen, and subsequently, L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and J. A. Steele, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Council of 8 December 2015 to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, if necessary, the decision of 19 July 2016 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 8 December 2015 by which FV has been placed on leave in the interests of the service;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by FV;

4. Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR)

(Case T-830/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark PLOMBIR - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court))

(2019/C 82/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Monolith Frost GmbH (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: E. Liebich and S. Labesius, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dovgan GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1812/2015-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Monolith Frost and Dovgan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1812/2015-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Monolith Frost GmbH, including the costs necessarily incurred by Monolith Frost for the purpose of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

3. Orders Dovgan GmbH to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.