ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 4 February 2022 — ultra air v EUIPO — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)

(Case T-67/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Proceedings for invalidity and revocation - European Union word mark ultrafilter international - Request for conversion to a national trade mark application - Revocation proceedings devoid of purpose - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 148/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2020 (Case R 271/2020-2), concerning revocation proceedings between ultra air and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. ultra air GmbH shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — ICA Traffic v Commission

(Case T-717/21 R)

(Application for interim relief - Public procurement - Supply of disinfection robots - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2022/C 119/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ICA Traffic GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: S. Hertwig and C. Vogt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Mantl, B. Araujo Arce and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, that the Commission be ordered to not continue with the purchase, announced in its press release of 21 September 2021, of 100 additional disinfection robots on the ground that one of the framework contracts for the supply of a maximum of 200 disinfection robots has ceased to have effect and, second, the grant of any other interim measure necessary to maintain the status quo.

Operative part of the order

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

Order of the General Court of 24 March 2022 — Di Taranto v EPPO

(Case T-368/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 - Appointment of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Derived unlawfulness - Candidates nominated by the Italian Republic - Nomination disputed before the national court - Inadmissability)

(2022/C 213/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Di Taranto (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Pellegrino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) (represented by: L. De Matteis and T. Gut, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision No 34/2021 of the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 3 May 2021 on the appointment of fifteen European Delegated Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Alessandro Di Taranto shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2022 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (Spicy Ginger)

(Case T-220/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 198/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2021 (Case R 435/2020-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Spicy Ginger as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Thomas Henry GmbH.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

(Case T-364/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 266/33)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2021 (Case R 2196/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a leaf as an EU trade mark

Operative part of the order

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

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

(1) OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Retail Royalty v EUIPO — Fashion Energy (Representation of an eagle)

(Case T-226/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

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: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2813/2019-5), relating to cancellation proceedings between Fashion Energy and Retail Royalty.

Operative part of the order

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

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

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Order of the General Court of 13 May 2022 — Swords v Commission

(Case T-586/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Refusal of access to documents on the basis of the protection of the purpose of investigations - Confirmatory application - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Swords (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Byrne, Barrister at Law)

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

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 13 July 2021, by which the Commission, pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), rejected his request for access to all the documents relating to the information which it had received from Ireland concerning the benefits to public health linked to the travel restrictions between the Member States of the European Union in place since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, shall pay those incurred by Mr Patrick Swords.

(1) OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 30 May 2022 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (MATE MATE)

(Case T-452/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 284/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 May 2021 (Case R 406/2021-1).

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Thomas Henry GmbH.

(1) OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 31 August 2022 — Virbac v Commission

(Case T-138/21) (1)

(2022/C 398/44)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-792/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 340/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 12 October 2021 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to several documents relating to the European Union’s legislative initiative regarding sustainable corporate governance.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Commission is to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 1 December 2022 — Foz v Council

(Case T-481/21) (1)

(2023/C 35/103)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Order of the General Court of 15 September 2022 — European Paper Packaging Alliance v Commission

(Case T-518/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Commission Guidelines on single-use plastic products - Directive (EU) 2019/904 - Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Paper Packaging Alliance (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of points 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 and of Tables 4-2 and 4-8 of the Commission guidelines on single-use plastic products in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (OJ 2021 C 216, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

3. The European Paper Packaging Alliance shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission except those relating to the applications to intervene.

4. The European Paper Packaging Alliance, the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

(1) OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Order of the President of the General Court of 21 June 2022 — Narzieva v Council

(Case T-238/22 R)

(Interim Relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in respect of Russia’s actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Application for interim measures - No urgency - Balancing of interests)

(2022/C 303/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Saodat Narzieva (Tachkent, Uzbekistan) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

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

Re:

By her application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, suspension of operation of, first, two acts by which the criteria for inclusion on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures on the basis of their involvement in actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine was amended and, second, two acts by which her name was added to that list. Specifically, the applicant seeks, first, the suspension of operation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55), in so far as that act concerns her, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3), in so far as that act concerns her, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1); second, in the alternative, suspension of operation of Decision 2022/581 in so far as that act concerns her, of Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Decision 2022/329 and of Article 1(1)(f) and (g) of Regulation 2022/330; and, third, that the Council of the European Union be ordered to pay her the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the costs which she incurred for defending her interests.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — RT France v Council

(Case T-125/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Suspension of the broadcasting activities of certain media - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency - Weighing of competing interests)

(2022/C 213/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RT France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Piwnica, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune, R. Meyer and S. Emmerechts, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of the operation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/351 of 1 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 65, p. 5) and of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/350 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 65, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the European Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2022 — Farco-Pharma v EUIPO — Infarco (FARCO)

(Case T-179/22) (1)

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

(2022/C 418/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Farco-Pharma GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Schoene, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Infarco, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 January 2022 (Case R 172/2021-4).

Operative part of the order

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

2. Farco-Pharma GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

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

(Case T-157/22) (1)

(2022/C 340/80)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (catlover)

(Case T-232/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark catlover - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 24/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Ringelhann and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 February 2022 (Case R 717/2020-5).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Growth Finance Plus AG shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 237, 2.6.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 11 October 2022 — Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament

(Case T-41/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Parliament resolution on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/71)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Koźmiński and T. Siemiński, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and W. Kuzmienko, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2021 on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland (2021/2925(RSP)).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris shall be ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Procedure – Defence in disputes between the Communities and their staff

2. Officials – Personal file

(Staff Regulations, Art. 26)

3. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b))

1. The rule of consistency between the prior administrative complaint and the action does not apply only to applicants. There is no rule or principle preventing defendant institutions from putting forward, in the defence, additional arguments to those on which they based their position in the pre-litigation phase and, consequently, from attaching to that defence documents providing proof in support of those arguments.

(see para. 38)

2. The administrative purpose of a document placed in an official’s personal file on his own initiative is not confined solely to the uses which the official considers appropriate.

(see para. 39)

3. Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that the reference period referred to in that provision expires, when an official is reassigned, on the date when he initially entered the service of the Communities.

(see para. 71)

See:

T-90/92 Magdalena Fernández v Commission [1993] ECR II‑971, para. 32
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

25 September 2007

Case F-108/05

Alessandro Cavallaro

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Cavallaro seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision of the Commission appointing authority of 10 August 2005 rejecting his complaint of 25 May 2005 against that authority’s decision of 3 March 2005 refusing to grant him the expatriation allowance.

Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1. Procedure – Defence in disputes between the Communities and their staff

2. Officials – Personal file

(Staff Regulations, Art. 26)

3. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b))

1. The rule of consistency between the prior administrative complaint and the action does not apply only to applicants. There is no rule or principle preventing defendant institutions from putting forward, in the defence, additional arguments to those on which they based their position in the pre-litigation phase and, consequently, from attaching to that defence documents providing proof in support of those arguments.

(see para. 38)

2. The administrative purpose of a document placed in an official’s personal file on his own initiative is not confined solely to the uses which the official considers appropriate.

(see para. 39)

3. Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that the reference period referred to in that provision expires, when an official is reassigned, on the date when he initially entered the service of the Communities.

(see para. 71)

See:

T-90/92 Magdalena Fernández v Commission [1993] ECR II‑971, para. 32