ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2019 — Inpost Paczkomaty and Inpost v Commission

(Joined Cases T-282/16 and T/283/16) (1)

(State aid - Postal sector - Compensation of the net costs resulting from universal service obligations - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business)

(2019/C 155/44)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant in Case T-282/16: Inpost Paczkomaty sp. z o.o. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: initially, T. Proć, then D. Doktór, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-283/16: Inpost S.A. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: W. Knopkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, K. Blanc and D. Recchia, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

Re:

Applications based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 8236 final, of 26 November 2015, by which the Commission did not raise objections to the measure notified by the Polish authorities in relation to the aid granted to Poczta Polska in the form of compensation of the net cost resulting from the delivery, by that company, of its universal postal service obligations in respect of the period from and including 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Declares that Inpost Paczkomaty sp. z o.o. and Inpost S.A. are each to bear their own costs and orders them to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Declares that the Republic of Poland is to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2019 — Athletic Club v Commission

(Case T-679/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs - Preferential tax rate on the income of the clubs authorised to operate as non-profit organisations - Decision declaring that the aid is incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Infra-State measure - Selective nature - Distortion of competition - Effect on trade between Member States - Alteration to existing aid - Duty to state reasons)

(2019/C 131/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Athletic Club (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: E. Lucas Murillo de la Cueva and J.M. Luís Carrasco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Articles 1, 4 and 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2391 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs (OJ 2016 L 357, p.1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Athletic Club to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Remag Metallhandel and Jaschinsky v Commission

(Case T-631/16) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Anti-dumping - OLAF’s insistence that Member States recover anti-dumping duties relating to any importation of silicon metal originating in Taiwan without proof that that silicon metal originated in China - Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 - Causal link)

(2019/C 238/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Remag Metallhandel GmbH (Steyr, Austria) and Werner Jaschinsky (St. Ulrich bei Steyr, Austria) (represented by: M. Lux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and A. Lewis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the request by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) that the customs authorities of the Member States recover anti-dumping duties for consignments of silicon exported from Taiwan to the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Remag Metallhandel GmbH and Mr Werner Jaschinsky to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-300/16) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 - Imposition of a definitive countervailing duty - Indian scheme establishing an export tax on iron ore and a dual railway freight charge placing the transport of iron ore for export at a disadvantage - Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/1037) - Financial contribution - Provision of goods - Action consisting of ‘entrusting’ a private body to carry out a function constituting a financial contribution - Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation No 597/2009 - Specificity of a subsidy - Article 6(d) of Regulation No 597/2009 - Calculation of benefit - Injury to the Union industry - Calculation of price undercutting and the injury margin - Causal link - Access to confidential data of the subsidy investigation - Rights of the defence)

(2019/C 187/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Saint-Gobain Pam (Pont-à-Mousson, France) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and C. Bouvarel, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India (OJ 2016 L 73, p. 1), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India, in so far as it concerns Jindal Saw Ltd;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia SpA;

3. Orders Saint-Gobain Pam to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2019 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-287/16 RENV) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Export refunds - No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State - Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies - Proportionality)

(2020/C 19/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium the amount of EUR 9 601 619,00.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium the amount of EUR 9 601 619,00;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Hitachi-LG Data Storage and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea v Commission

(Case T-1/16) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events organised by two computer manufacturers - Unlimited jurisdiction - Infringement of the principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons - Point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Particular circumstances - Error of law)

(2019/C 305/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: L. Gyselen and N. Ersbøll, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Biolan, M. Farley, C. Giolito and F. van Schaik, and subsequently by A. Biolan, M. Farley and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed by the European Commission on the applicants in its Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Picard v Commission

(Case T-769/16) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations in 2014 - Transitional measures relating to certain methods for calculating pension rights - Change in the rules following the signature of a new contract as a member of the contract staff - Definition of ‘being in service’)

(2021/C 278/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maxime Picard (Hettange-Grande, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas and M. Bertha, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the reply of the manager of the Pensions Sector of the Commission’s Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 4 January 2016 and, second, in so far as necessary, the decision of 25 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Commission’s Directorate-General Human Resources dismissing the applicant’s complaint of 1 April 2016 against the decision or lack of decision resulting from the reply of 4 January 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Maxime Picard to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Elche Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-901/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs - Guarantee - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Indirect beneficiary - Whether imputable to the State - Advantage - Private investor test)

(2020/C 175/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (Elche, Spain) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán, M. Clayton and J. Morant Vidal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as it concerns Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Elche Club de Fútbol, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — YY and ZA v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-545/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses - Place of origin located in a third country - Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)

(2022/C 303/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: YY, ZA (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke, T. Van Lysebeth and N. Maes, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and A. Ysebaert, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions to reduce or discontinue, from 1 January 2014, the reimbursement of annual travel expenses enabling the applicants to maintain a connection with their place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Order YY and ZA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015 (case initially registered before the European Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-36/15 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 8 December 2021 — BZ v ECB

(Case T-500/16) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Request for recognition of an occupational disease - Non-contractual liability - Material damage - Non-material damage)

(2022/C 51/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and F. Feyerbacher, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for, first, annulment of the ECB’s decisions of 29 August 2011, 20 December 2011 and 25 April 2012 and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained as a result of the ECB’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BZ to pay the costs.

(1) [confidential] (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number [confidential] and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/21

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — avanti v EUIPO (avanti)

(Case T-250/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark avanti - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 083/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: avanti GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Bahmann, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 (Case R 801/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Avanti as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders avanti GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/25

Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2018 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)

(Case T-15/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark YAMAS - Earlier EU word mark LLAMA - 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)))

(2018/C 190/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dimitrios Mitrakos (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: D. Bakopanou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Kusturovic and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Juan Ignacio Belasco Baquedano (Viana, Spain) (represented by P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 (Case R 532/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Belasco Baquedano and Mr Mitrakos.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Dimitrios Mitrakos to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/48

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA)

(Case T-6/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA - Earlier international figurative mark LABELL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and M. del Mar Baldares, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: ITM Entreprises SAS (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 (Case R 690/2016-2) relating to opposition proceedings between ITM Entreprises and Equivalenza Manufactory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 October 2016 (Case R 690/2016-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by, Equivalenza Manufactory, SL in the proceedings before the General Court.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case T-34/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Skyleader v EUIPO — Sky International (SKYLEADER) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark SKYLEADER — Failure to take into account evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001] — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 [now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001] — Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 [now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU 2017/1430])

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Skyleader v EUIPO — Sky International (SKYLEADER)

(Case T-34/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark SKYLEADER — Failure to take into account evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001] — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 [now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001] — Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 [now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU 2017/1430])’

Parties

Applicant: Skyleader a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Malmstedt, 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: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 805/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Sky International and Skyleader.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Skyleader a.s. to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by Sky International AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

( 1 ) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Case T-207/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark hp — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp)

(Case T-207/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark hp — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 (Case R 1001/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Senetic and HP Hewlett Packard Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Senetic S.A. to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.