ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/29

Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza)

(Case T-753/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ocean beach club ibiza - Earlier national figurative and word marks ocean drive Ibiza-hotel and OCEAN THE GROUP - Annulment of the earlier mark on which the contested decision was based - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 243/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, F. Miazzetto and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Etyam, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2014 (Case R 2293/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Etyam and Ice Mountain Ibiza

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/31

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Farahat v Council

(Case T-830/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment))

(2016/C 392/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Farahat (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, P. Saini QC, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 36) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 7), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision No 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they apply to Mohamed Farahat;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Farahat.

(1) OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/22

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Easy Asset Management (e@sy Credit)

(Case T-745/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark e@sy Credit - Earlier national figurative mark EasyCredit - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 326/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, D. Terheggen and T. Kiphuth, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by: D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and intervener before the General Court: Easy Asset Management AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Georgieva-Tabakova and H. Raychev, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2014 (Case R 1975/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Easy Asset Management AD and TeamBank AG Nürnberg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TeamBank AG Nürnberg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/38

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-698/14) (1)

((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems (ESP DESIS III) - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low bids - Principle of free competition - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 402/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by: V. Christianos, I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers, and subsequently by: M. Sfyri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents, and, initially, E. Petritsi, E. Roussou and K. Adamantopoulos, and, subsequently, E. Roussou and K. Adamantopoulos, lawyers)

Re:

Firstly, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decisions to rank in third and fourth positions under the cascade mechanism the bids made by the applicants for lots Nos 1 and 3 under open call for tenders No DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/029 — ESP DESIS III concerning ‘External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems’ (OJ 2013/S 19-0380314) and to exclude their bid for lot No 2 under that call for tenders and, secondly, application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/37

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission

(Case T-386/14) (1)

((State aid - Banking sector - Aid granted to Danish bank FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the Danish Financial Stability Company - State aid for banks during the crisis - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Definition of aid - Private investor test - Private creditor test - Calculation of the amount of the aid - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 402/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FIH Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark), FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Copenhagen) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 89).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/24

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-466/14) (1)

((Customs Union - Importation of tuna products from El Salvador - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Application for non-recovery of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Right to good administration under Article 872a of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Error of the competent authorities not reasonably capable of being detected))

(2017/C 038/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by A. Rubio González, and subsequently by V. Ester Casas, abogados del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas, A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2363 final of 14 April 2014 which found, in a particular case, that the remission of import duties is justified for a certain amount, but not for another amount (REM 02/2013), inasmuch as it concludes that the remission of the import duties of EUR 14 417 193,41 is not justified.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
1.

Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union, as contained in the notice published on 15 March 2014 for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, to maintain the name of Sina Bank on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010, and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/40

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Lubrizol France v Council

(Case T-191/14) (1)

((Common Customs Tariff - Regulation concerning the suspension of autonomous duties on certain agricultural and industrial products - Objection to existing suspensions - Equivalence of products - Procedure for handling objections))

(2017/C 104/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, B. Hartnett, Barrister, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Caeiros and M. Clausen, and subsequently by A. Caieros and A. Lewis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201), to the extent that those measures deprived the applicant of its entitlement to three duty suspensions which it previously enjoyed under TARIC Codes 2918 2900 80, 3811 2900 10 and 3811 9000 30.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lubrizol France SAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/15

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-768/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Pocemon project - Eligible costs - Counterclaim - Repayment of amounts paid - Default interest))

(2017/C 070/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Re:

First, application based on Article 272 TFUE and seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of an amount paid to the applicant under agreement No 216088 to fund the project entitled ‘Point Of CarE MONitoring and Diagnostics for Autoimmune Diseases’, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) is unfounded, and, secondly, a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed;

2. ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 377 733,93, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %;

3. ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/31

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — Cipriani v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

(Case T-343/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CIPRIANI - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No breach of the right to a name of a well-known person - Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 277/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arrigo Cipriani (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G. Sironi and S. Bergia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice) (represented: initially by C. Hoole, Solicitor, and subsequently by T. Alkin, B. Brandreth, Barristers, W. Sander, P. Cantrill, M. Pearce, A. Hall and A. Ward, Solicitors, and finally by B. Brandreth, Barrister, and A. Poulter and P. Brownlow, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2014 (Case R 224/2012-4), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Arrigo Cipriani and Hotel Cipriani

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Arrigo Cipriani to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and those of Hotel Cipriani Srl.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/15

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Lauritzen Holding v EUIPO — DK Company (IWEAR)

(Case T-622/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark IWEAR - Earlier European Union word mark INWEAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 129/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lauritzen Holding AS (Drøbak, Norway) (represented by: P. Walsh and S. Dunstan, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock and subsequently by D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Intervener: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented initially by M. Nielsen and E. Skovbo, and subsequently by E. Skovbo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2014 (Case R 1935/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between IC Companys A/S and Lauritzen Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lauritzen Holding AS to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by IC Companys A/S for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission

(Case T-58/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimp - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law - 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Mitigating factors - Substantially limited involvement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Maximum of 10 % of total turnover - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Paragraph 37 of the 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Marne, Germany) (represented by: J. Sparr, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, secondly, a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as half of those incurred by Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG;

4. Orders Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG to bear half of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/28

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Marine Harvest v Commission

(Case T-704/14) (1)

((Competition - Concentrations - Decision imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration prior to its notification and authorisation - Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Negligence - Principle ne bis in idem - Gravity of the infringement - Amount of the fine))

(2017/C 424/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marine Harvest ASA (Bergen, Norway) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, C. Giolito and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5089 final of 23 July 2014 imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case COMP/M.7184 — Marine Harvest/Morpol), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Marine Harvest ASA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Vnesheconombank v Council

(Case T-737/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 392/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. M. Viñals Camallonga, J.L. Iriarte Ángel and L. Barriola Urruticoechea, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and G. Étienne, and subsequently F. Florindo Gijón, P. Mahnič Bruni and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Gauci and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014, amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014, amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings and in the interlocutory proceedings;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission

(Case T-450/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd (Osaka, Japan) and J-Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by M. Hansen, L. Crocco, J. Ruiz Calzado and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd and J-Power Systems Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.