ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 –

SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria v Commission

(Case T‑285/19)

(Arbitration clause – Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Grant agreement – The MARSOL Project – Eligible costs – OLAF investigation report finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible – Repayment of sums paid – Burden of proof – Principle of good faith – Right to be heard – Principle of sound administration – Rights of the defence – Proportionality)

1. EU budget – EU financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Grant agreement – The MARSOL Project – Eligible costs – OLAF investigation report finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible – Financing covering only expenses actually incurred – Demonstration that the costs have actually been incurred – Allocation of the burden of proof (Art. 317 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1906/2006, Art. 31(3)(a) and (c); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 172a(1)) (see paras 46-51, 52, 55, 59, 60, 62)

2. Judicial proceedings – General Court seised under an arbitration clause – Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme – Obligation on the Commission to observe the principles governing contracts – Refusal by the Commission to suspend the recovery procedure – Infringement of the principle of good faith and of the right to be heard – None – Infringement of the right to good administration, of the right of access to documents and of the rights of the defence – None (Art. 272 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41) (see paras 73-84)

3. 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 – None – Ineligible costs – The MARSOL Project – Request by the Commission for recovery of an amount which corresponds to non-eligible costs under the grant agreement – Infringement of the principles of proportionality, fairness and good faith – None (Art. 5(4) TEU) (see paras 92-102)

4. EU law – Principles – Principle of prohibition of unjust enrichment of the Union – Meaning (see paras 105-110)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking primarily, in essence, a declaration that the applicant is not required to repay the amount of EUR 487 914.32 which is part of the total amount awarded to it under Grant Agreement No 619120 concerning the MARSOL Project or, in the alternative, a declaration that the amount to be repaid may not exceed EUR 100 044.99 or, in the further alternative, an order that the Commission is to reimburse the applicant for the costs incurred by the latter in implementing that project, in accordance with the provisions on unjust enrichment.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2021 –

Lianopoulou v Commission

(Case T‑880/19)

(Civil service – Officials – Decision on invalidity – Opinion of the invalidity committee – Article 78 of the Staff Regulations – Duty to state reasons)

1. Actions brought by officials – Purpose – Alteration of the contested decision – Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 26)

2. Officials – Invalidity – Invalidity Committee – Opinion – Obligation to state reasons – Purpose – Scope – Judicial review – Scope (Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see paras 43-45, 53, 59)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 27 February 2019 terminating the service of the applicant on 28 February 2019 on account of the finding of her invalidity and granting her an invalidity allowance as from 1 March 2019.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 27 February 2019 terminating the service of Ms Anastasia Lianopoulou on 28 February 2019 on account of the finding of her invalidity and granting her an invalidity allowance as from 1 March 2019;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Decisions of EUIPO – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), second sentence)

(see paras 63, 65)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2021 –

FD v Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking

(Case T‑641/19)

(Civil service – Temporary staff – Fixed-term contract – Decision not to renew – Psychological harassment – Misuse of powers – Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff – Equal treatment – Responsibilities)

1. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character – Account taken of the reasoning therein (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 29-31)

2. Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract – Allegation of psychological harassment – Requirement for a link between the harassment and the grounds of the decision not to renew (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a) (see paras 37, 38)

3. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Correspondence between the complaint and the application – Same subject matter and legal basis – Submissions and arguments not made in the complaint but closely related to it – Admissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 43)

4. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Plea alleging psychological harassment – Obligation to take into account the relevant factual context as a whole (see para. 44)

5. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Meaning – Burden and administration of proof (see para. 92)

6. Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Renewal of a fixed-term contract – Administration’s discretion – Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials – Account taken of the interests of the staff member concerned – Limits (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 8) (see paras 130-134)

7. Actions brought by officials – Application for damages linked to an application for annulment – Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 161)

8. Actions brought by officials – Action for damages brought without a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations – Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 162)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment, in substance, of the decision of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 3 December 2018 not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision, concerning an overall strategy of harassment of which, in his opinion, he was a victim.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Actions brought by officials – Time limits – Request for compensation addressed to an institution – Duty to act within a reasonable time – No possibility of a suspension in the event of a complaint made to the European Data Protection Supervisor

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 45/2001, Art. 32(2), first para.)

(see paras 106, 107)
1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 June 2019 (Case R 341/2018-5) in so far as it concerns the goods and services in Classes 1, 5 and 44 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, and corresponding to the following description for each of those classes: – Class 1: ‘Stem cells for scientific purposes’, ‘Stem cells for research purposes’; – Class 5: ‘Veterinary preparations’, ‘Stem cells for medical purposes; Cellular function activating agents for medical purposes; Stem cells for veterinary purposes’, ‘Surgical implants grown from stem cells’; – Class 44: ‘Medical services relating to the removal, treatment and processing of stem cells; Medical services relating to the removal, treatment and processing of human blood, umbilical cord blood, human cells, stem cells and bone marrow’;
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – General reference to documents annexed to the application – Inadmissibility

(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 para. 61)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2021 –

Cyprus v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T‑556/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI – Earlier national certification word marks ΧΑΛΛΟΥΜΙ HALLOUMI – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Similarity between services and goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)

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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 40, 41)

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 – Word mark GRILLOUMI – Word marks ΧΑΛΛΟΥΜΙ HALLOUMI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 42, 43, 45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1284/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Fontana Food.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1284/2018-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus;
Officials – Disciplinary measures – Suspension of an official – Obligation to hear the official beforehand – Scope – Infringement – Consequences

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex IX, Art. 23(2))

(see paras 47-52, 71, 75, 143, 156)
20

The ECB inferred the existence of that general presumption of confidentiality from the fact that the EU legislature had laid down rules which, first, impose professional secrecy on all persons working or having worked for the prudential supervisory authorities and, secondly, require that confidential information which those persons receive in the exercise of their functions may be disclosed only in summary or aggregated form, in such a way that credit institutions cannot be identified. In that context, it referred to Article 27 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), to Article 53 et seq. of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338), and to Article 84 of Directive 2014/59.
33

Thus, the purpose of the conciliation procedure is to allow for an amicable settlement of the disputes which have arisen between the EIB and its staff members, and the decision of the President of the EIB ending that procedure is merely a precondition for bringing the matter before the judicature. In those circumstances, in accordance with the case-law relating to disputes covered by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union or by the ECB’s Staff Rules, as recalled in paragraph 29 above, the view must be taken that claims for annulment formally directed against the decision of the President of the EIB ending a conciliation procedure have the effect of bringing before the judicature the act adversely affecting the applicant that forms the subject matter of that procedure, except where the scope of that decision differs from that of the act forming the subject matter of the conciliation procedure. Where that decision contains a re-examination of the applicant’s situation in the light of new elements of law or of fact, or where it changes or adds to the original act, it is a measure subject to review by the judicature, which will take it into consideration when assessing the legality of the contested measure, or will even regard it as an act adversely affecting the applicant replacing the contested measure (see, by analogy, judgment of 21 May 2014, Mocová v Commission, T‑347/12 P, EU:T:2014:268, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
29

It is settled case-law that the statement of reasons required by that provision must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (judgment of 2 April 1998, Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France,C‑367/95 P, EU:C:1998:154, paragraph 63; see also, judgment of 1 July 2008, Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, C‑341/06 P and C‑342/06 P, EU:C:2008:375, paragraph 88 and the case-law cited).
64

In the fourth place, that understanding is consistent with the judgments of the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Lazio Regional Administrative Court) and the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) (see paragraphs 27 and 29 above), in respect of which the applicants claim, without any foundation, to have indicated, in essence, that the Bank of Italy’s decision to order the resolution of Banca delle Marche had not been ‘autonomous’ but ‘imposed’ by the Commission. The passages from those judgments relied on by the applicants merely recall, in substance, some of the facts set out in paragraphs 52 et seq. above without, however, making such a legal characterisation. Thus, the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Lazio Regional Administrative Court) did repeat the Bank of Italy’s words which ‘expressly stated in the operative part of the resolution that the intervention of the [FITD] [could not have] taken place because the Commission … was not in favour of it, in so far as it was not compatible with State aid rules and that the intervention of the [FITD] should have been formally submitted [to it] in advance for examination in order for it to verify compatibility with those rules’. However, contrary to the applicants’ submissions at the hearing in response to a question from the Court, that quotation does not indicate that the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Lazio Regional Administrative Court) took the view that the Bank of Italy no longer had any freedom of action solely because of the attitude adopted by the Commission. In its own assessment and legal characterisation of the facts, that court instead highlighted the various evidence and economic data which justified the conclusion that, at the time of the adoption of the resolution decision, Banca delle Marche was failing and that, therefore, its resolution was both reasonable and proportional. Moreover, as for the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), in its judgment, having pointed out that, in accordance with its approach in the Banca Tercas case, the Commission classified the interventions of the FITD as State aid (paragraphs 8.3 and 8.4), it did not carry out an in-depth assessment of the elements of fact and law, but merely dismissed the evidence of a causal link between the failure to initiate rescue proceedings in respect of Banca delle Marche and alleged damage, as well as the fact of damage (paragraphs 8.5 and 9).
8

Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament applicable to the 9th parliamentary term (2019-2024) (‘the Rules of Procedure’), entitled ‘Verification of credentials’, is worded as follows: ‘1. Following general elections to the [Parliament], the President [of the Parliament] shall invite the competent authorities of the Member States to notify Parliament without delay of the names of the elected Members so that all Members may take their seats in Parliament with effect from the opening of the first sitting following the elections. At the same time, the President [of the Parliament] shall draw the attention of those authorities to the relevant provisions of the [Electoral Act] and invite them to take the necessary measures to avoid any incompatibility with the office of Member of the [Parliament]. 2. Members whose election has been notified to Parliament shall declare in writing, before taking their seat in Parliament, that they do not hold any office incompatible with that of Member of the [Parliament] within the meaning of Article 7(1) or (2) of the [Electoral Act]. Following general elections, the declaration shall be made, where possible, no later than six days prior to Parliament’s first sitting following the elections. Until such time as Members’ credentials have been verified or a ruling has been given on any dispute, and provided that they have previously signed the abovementioned written declaration, they shall take their seat in Parliament and on its bodies and shall enjoy all the rights attaching thereto. Where it is established from facts verifiable from sources available to the public that a Member holds an office incompatible with that of Member of the [Parliament], within the meaning of Article 7(1) or (2) of the [Electoral Act], Parliament, on the basis of the information provided by its President, shall establish that there is a vacancy. 3. On the basis of a report by the committee responsible, Parliament shall verify credentials without delay and rule on the validity of the mandate of each of its newly elected Members and also on any disputes referred to it pursuant to the provisions of the [Electoral Act], other than those which, under that Act, fall exclusively under the national provisions to which that Act refers. The committee’s report shall be based on the official notification by each Member State of the full results of the election, specifying the names of the candidates elected and those of any substitutes, together with their ranking in accordance with the results of the vote. The validity of the mandate of a Member may not be confirmed unless the written declarations required under this Rule and Annex I to these Rules of Procedure have been made. …’
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – Reference to statement submitted to the Board of Appeal reproduced in the application – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see paras 16, 17)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 April 2021 –

Apologistics v EUIPO – Kerckhoff (APO)

(Case T‑282/20)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark APO – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Aim – Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) (see para. 19)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 20, 22)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Definition (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) (see para. 21)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark APO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 25, 26, 33-39, 50)

5. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal – Examination restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), 52, 55 and 76(1)) (see para. 31)

6. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 42)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 982/2019-5), concerning invalidity proceedings between M. Kerckhoff and Apologistics.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
3.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 20)