ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2021 –

Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission

(Case T‑725/20)

(Dumping – Imports of aluminium extrusions originating in China – Act imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty – Act not open to challenge – Preparatory act – Inadmissibility – Definitive anti-dumping duty – No longer any interest in bringing proceedings – No need to adjudicate)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included – Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty – Inadmissibility – No infringement of the right to effective judicial protection (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036; Commission Regulation 2020/1428) (see paras 18-31, 33-37)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against a regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty – Subsequent adoption of a regulation instituting a definitive anti-dumping duty – No longer any interest in bringing proceedings – Exception – Conditions – Burden of proof (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036; Commission Regulation 2020/1428) (see paras 32, 39-51)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, primarily, annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1428 of 12 October 2020 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2020 L 336, p. 8), and, in the alternative, annulment of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 –

Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO – Huawei Technologies (GT3)

(Case T‑421/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark GT3 – Earlier EU figurative mark GT – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Relevant public – Level of attention – Action manifestly well founded)

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 28, 29)

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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 31)

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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-37)

4. 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 GT 3 and figurative mark GT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42-46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1609/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part

1. The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1609/2019-4) is annulled.
Fundamental rights – Right to effective judicial protection – Review of legality of EU measures – Procedures – Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure – Possibility of using an annulment action or reference for a preliminary ruling on validity

(Arts 6(1) and 19(1) TEU; Arts 263, fourth para., 267 and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47, 51(1) and 52(7))

(see paras 60, 62-66)
2

In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, clerical mistakes found in the list of representatives of the applicant of that judgment.
1.

EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings – Persons whose claims are not upheld by a decision – Decision upholding an application for a declaration of invalidity based on part of the arguments – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(4)) (see paras 21-23)
Order of the President of the General Court of 3 November 2021 –

PBL and WA v Commission

(Case T‑538/21 R)

(Interim relief – State aid – Aid granted by France to a professional football club – Application for interim measures – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 9-12)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Need to plead the risk of suffering that damage personally (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 15, 23, 24)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 26, 27)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 33-36)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for, first, annulment of the Commission’s letter of 1 September 2021 bearing the reference COMP.C.4/AH/mdr 2021(092342) and responding to a State aid complaint (SA.64489 – State aid to the Paris Saint-Germain football club) and, second, directions to be issued to the Commission.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Action for annulment – Time limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication or notification – Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant – Action brought out of time

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 59 and 60)

(see para. 58)
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 22-25)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2021 –

D & A Pharma v EMA

(Case T‑381/21)

(Action for annulment – Medicinal products for human use – Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Hopveus – Non-renewal of a permanent scientific advisory group – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant – Action against a decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) not to renew a scientific advisory group – Interest relating to future and uncertain situations – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 23-25, 27, 28, 35, 36, 41)

2. Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution – Not permissible (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 30, 31)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of EMA not to renew the scientific advisory group on psychiatry within the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, revealed implicitly by the public call for expression of interest for experts to become members of EMA’s scientific advisory groups and the press release of EMA of 5 May 2021.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the European Parliament.

3. Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) shall pay the costs.
4.

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 39)
Proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d) and (e))

(see paras 15-18)
7

Article 16(2) of Regulation 2017/1939 states that, after having received the reasoned opinion of the selection panel referred to in Article 14(3) of that regulation, the Council is to select and appoint one of the candidates to be the European Prosecutor of the Member State in question. That provision states that, if the selection panel finds that a candidate does not fulfil the conditions required for the performance of the duties of a European Prosecutor, its opinion is binding on the Council. In accordance with Article 16(3) of Regulation 2017/1939, the Council, acting by simple majority, is to select and appoint the European Prosecutors for a non-renewable term of six years and may decide to extend the mandate for a maximum of three years at the end of the six-year period. Article 16(4) of that regulation provides that every three years there is to be a partial replacement of one third of the European Prosecutors and that the Council, acting by simple majority, is to adopt transitional rules for the appointment of European Prosecutors for and during the first mandate period.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 September 2010 – Portugal v Transnáutica and Commission

(Case T-385/05 TO)

Third-party proceedings – Opportunity for the third party to take part in the original case – No prejudicial effects on the rights of the third party – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Third party proceedings – Conditions for admissibility – Third party capacity (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 42 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 24(6) and 123(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

2. Procedure – Third party proceedings – Conditions for admissibility – Prejudicial effects on the rights of the third party (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 42 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 123(1)(b)) (see paras 25-28)

Re:

APPLICATION initiating third-party proceedings to contest the judgment of 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica v Commission , not published in the ECR.

Operative part

1. The third-party application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Portuguese Republic is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Transnáutica – Transportes e Navegação, SA, including those relating to the interim proceedings.
43.

Then, on 28 February 1990, the Commissioner responsible for competition matters, Sir Leon Brittan, wrote the letter notifying the decision which Automec now asks the Court to annul. ( 11 ) The Commissioner's letter gives two reasons for taking no further action on Automec's complaint: ‘1. In the first place and with reference to the first request set out in your complaint (... that BMW be enjoined to deliver to Automec vehicles and spare parts and to authorize Automec to use the trademark BMW), the Commission considers that it has, under Article 85(1), no power of injunction which would allow it to require a car manufacturer to deliver, in the circumstances of this case, its own products, even on the assumption that it had been established that the distribution system of the said producer (BMW Italia) was incompatible with Article 85(1). Moreover, Automec has provided no evidence of the existence of a dominant position held by BMW Italia or of any abuse thereof in breach of Article 86 of the Treaty; it is on the basis of that Article that the Commission might, if it thought fit, require BMW Italia to enter into commercial relations with Automec. 2. As regards Automec's second request (... that the Commission put an end to the infringement that Automec alleges against BMW Italia), the Commission finds that Automec has already seised the Italian courts, both at first instance and on appeal, of the litigation between it and BMW Italia seeking to set aside the concession contract which previously bound the two companies. There is nothing, as far as the Commission can see, to stop Automec submitting to the same national court the question of the conformity of BMW Italia's existing distribution system with Article 85. It seems all the easier to seise the national court of this problem given that that court is already aware of the contractual relations established by BMW Italia with its distributors. In that regard, the Commission would remind you that the Italian court not only has concurrent jurisdiction with the Commission to apply Article 85 to the facts of the case, but also has a power which the Commission does not have, namely that of ordering BMW Italia to pay damages to Automec if Automec were able to show that the producer's refusal to sell had caused Automec to suffer loss. Article 6 of Regulation 99/63/EEC confers on the Commission power of discretion in relation to the assessment of “the information in its possession” following examination of a complaint. This power allows it to apply different degrees of priority in dealing with the examination of alleged infringements brought to its notice. For the reasons set out in head 2 of this letter, the Commission has come to the conclusion that there is no interest of the Community sufficient [to justify] going more deeply into the examination of the facts set forth in the present complaint.’
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/29

Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Sumitomo Chemical (UK) PLC against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-403/04)

(2005/C 19/61)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 October 2004 by Sumitomo Chemical (UK) PLC, London, (United Kingdom), represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendant to respond to the applicant's request;

— Or, in the alternative, order the annulment of the European Commission's act D 341571(04);

— Order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Community law by failing to respond to the applicant, or, in the alternative, as a result of the European Commission's act D 341571(04), as well as any applicable interests, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

— Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law invoked are similar to those invoked in Case T-400/04, Arch Chemicals and Arch Timber Protection/Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/26

Action brought on 5 September 2005 by Susanne Sorensen v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-335/05)

(2005/C 296/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties:

Applicant(s): Susanne Sorensen (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul the decision appointing the applicant to the post of assistant, in that it fixes her classification in grade B*3, step 2;

— annul the decision to cancel all the points constituting the applicant's ‘rucksack’;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, had initially been classified in grade C2. she was successful in open competition COM/B/1/02 (at level B5/B4) and was appointed, by the contested decision of 5 August 2004, in grade B*3, step 2. In support of her action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the competition notice and also of the vacancy notice, in so far as both notices provided for classification in grade B5 or B4. She claims, in the same context, that there has been a breach of Articles 4, 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations. Relying on the fact that some successful candidates in the competition were appointed before 1 May 2004 (the date of the entry into force of the amendments to the Staff Regulations) in grade B5 or B4, which correspond to grade B*5 or B*6 under the new denomination, the applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. She also contends that the principle that an official should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations have been breached, since she had a legitimate expectation of being appointed in grade B*5 or B*4. In that context, she claims that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which also breaches the principle of legal certainty, is unlawful.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/33

Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Dimon Incorporated against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-41/05)

(2005/C 93/64)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by Dimon Incorporated, established in Danville, Virginia (USA), represented by L.Bergkamp, H. Cogels and J. Dhont, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the contested decision null and void to the extent that they refer to Dimon Inc.;

— in second order, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Agroexpansion S.A. and on a joint and severally basis to Dimon Inc.;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 - Raw tobacco Spain). The applicant claims that it is not the correct addressee of the decision.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringement of Article 81(1) EC, Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the principle of proportionality. According to the applicant, the Commission made a manifest error in finding that the applicant exercised a decisive influence over Agroexpansion during the infringement period and has therefore incorrectly addressed the decision to the applicant and has exceeded the maximum limit for the amount of the fine that can be imposed on Agroexpansion, since the Commission has taken into consideration the Dimon's group turnover for calculating the maximum ceiling of the fine.

The applicant furthermore submits a violation of the principle of proportionality and liability to the extent that the applicant has been held liable for a single and complex long term cartel agreement carried out by Agroexpansion of which the applicant was not informed.

The applicant also submits a violation of the principle of proportionality and liability and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. According to the applicant, it should not have been held liable for the infringements that occurred before Agroexpansion became part of the Dimon group.

Finally, the applicant submits a violation of the principle of legitimate expectations in the application of a mitigating factor, pursuant to Section 3 of the Commission's Guidelines of 1998 (2), following the early termination of the infringement as soon as the Commission began the investigation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the ruleson competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, p. 3)