ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2021 –

GW v Court of Auditors

(Case T‑709/19)

(Civil service – Officials – Official in a state of total permanent invalidity – Periodic medical examination – Arrangements – Application for the matter to be referred to the Invalidity Committee – Refusal – Article 15 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations – Conclusion No 273/15 of the Committee of Heads of Administration – Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

1. Officials – Invalidity – Initiation of the invalidity procedure – Official’s application seeking the convening of the Invalidity Committee – Consequences (Staff Regulations, Art. 78 and Annex VIII, Art. 13) (see para. 80)

2. Officials – Social security – Invalidity pension – Possibility for the institution concerned to monitor regularly how the official’s situation is developing – Scope (Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 15) (see paras 81, 82, 87-90)

3. Acts of the institutions – Internal directive – Rules indicating the practice to be followed by the Administration – Whether binding on the Administration (see para. 83)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 22 May 2019 dismissing the applicant’s application to refer the matter to the Invalidity Committee.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Court of Auditors of 22 May 2019 dismissing GW’s application to refer the matter to the Invalidity Committee;
4.

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Decision to freeze funds – Adopted or maintained on the basis of a judicial procedure carried out by the authorities of a third State concerning the misappropriation of public funds or abuse of office by a public office-holder – Conditions – National decision adopted in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds relied on against the persons or entities concerned are well founded – Council’s obligation to verify observance of the rights in question – Infringement (Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2019/354; Council Regulations No 208/2014 and No 2019/352) (see paras 85-94, 98-100, 104-111, 129)
Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Meaning – Application in proceedings concerning the Staff Regulations – Requirement of a breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – None

(Arts 268 and 340, second para., TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see paras 38-40)
Approximation of laws – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals – REACH Regulation – Substances of very high concern – Procedure for identification – Discretion of the EU authorities – Scope – Judicial review – Limits – Manifest error, misuse of powers or manifest exceeding of the limits of the discretion

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 57 and 59)

(see paras 44-48, 212, 215)
69

In that regard, the General Court has found that it is possible to infer from the criterion relating to the category of ‘leading businesspersons operating in Syria’ a rebuttable presumption that such persons are associated with the Syrian regime (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 April 2019, Sharif v Council, T‑5/17, EU:T:2019:216, paragraph 106, and order of 11 September 2019, Haswani v Council, T‑231/15 RENV, not published, EU:T:2019:589, paragraph 60). That presumption applies where the Council is able to demonstrate that the person is not only a businessperson operating in Syria, but also that he or she can be described as ‘leading’. As is apparent from the express terms of recital 6 of Decision 2015/1836 and as mentioned in paragraph 9 above, it is the influence that that category of persons is likely to exert over the Syrian regime that the Council aims to exploit by pushing them, through the restrictive measures it adopts against them, to put pressure on the Syrian regime to change its policy of repression. Thus, once the Council has established the influence that a businessperson is capable of exerting over the Syrian regime, there is presumed to be a link between that person and the Syrian regime.
66

Of the total quantity allocated in 2015 (183.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent), 162.9 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to incumbent undertakings and 20.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to new entrants. Of the total quantity allocated in 2016 (170.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent), 151.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to incumbent undertakings and 18.7 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to new entrants. Of the total quantity allocated in 2017 (170.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent), 151.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to incumbent undertakings and 18.9 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to new entrants for which a reference value had not yet been established. Of the total quantity allocated in 2018 (101.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent), 93.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to undertakings for which a reference value had been established (78.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent to incumbent undertakings) and 7.9 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to new entrants for which a reference value had not yet been established. Lastly, of the total quantity allocated in 2019 (100.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent), 91.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to undertakings for which a reference value had been established (78 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent to incumbent undertakings) and 9.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent was allocated to new entrants for which a reference value had not yet been established. In addition, a substantial proportion of the total quantity available is reserved for incumbent undertakings over the years, still representing about 30% for the year 2030.
52

In the first place, it must be borne in mind that the applicant states that he ceased to work for the AEOI in August 2013 and that he no longer has any relationship with that organisation. In order to substantiate that assertion, the applicant produces, first, a certificate signed by the Director-General of the AEOI, dated 5 May 2019, according to which the applicant worked as the ‘Vice Chairperson of the [AEOI] in Executive Affairs and Administrative and Financial Deputy of the Organisation’ from 23 April 2011 to 31 August 2013. In response to the Council’s criticisms expressed in the defence, relating to the fact that the abovementioned certificate is of poor technical quality and is not certified, the applicant provided, when lodging the reply, a new certificate from the AEOI’s Director-General for Human Resources Development and Welfare of 22 January 2020. On that certificate, the content of which is the same as that of the certificate of 5 May 2019, it is stated that, after 31 August 2013, the applicant did not hold a position, employment or working relationship with the AEOI. Secondly, the applicant argues that his alleged position as Deputy Head of the AEOI is contradicted by a press release from the Foreign Office of the United Kingdom of 23 June 2019, according to which the Minister for the Middle East had had meetings with, inter alia, the Deputy Head of the AEOI, A. Thirdly, in the reply, the applicant notes that his name is not mentioned in any report of the IAEA. According to the applicant, however, the various reports of that organisation regularly mention the names of the legal representatives of the AEOI, in particular that of its Head. Fourthly and lastly, the applicant observes that since the signing of the JCPOA, the Iranian nuclear programme has been under the close supervision of the IAEA and the European Union. Consequently, according to the applicant, if he actually was still linked with the AEOI, the Council would have had evidence to prove this.
15

In that context, the Commission considered: – first, that the construction and provision of motorway infrastructure at affordable cost to users constituted a genuine service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU, with the result that the conditions in Section 2.2 of the Communication on public service compensation are fulfilled; – secondly, that the services of general economic interest at issue were entrusted to the concessionaires concerned under instruments which referred to the duration and object of the public service obligations, the commitments undertaken, the nature of the exclusive rights, the description of the compensation mechanisms and the relevant parameters, as well as the arrangements put in place to avoid and recover any overcompensation. Consequently, the conditions in Section 2.3 of the Communication on public service compensation are fulfilled (recitals 85 to 90 of the contested decision); – thirdly, that the duration of the prolongations ensured the financial equilibrium of the proposed plan, duly taking into account the cap on toll charges, the cost of the works to be carried out, the remuneration of concessionaires and the takeover value. Consequently, the conditions in Section 2.4 of the Communication on public service compensation are fulfilled (recitals 92 to 95 of the contested decision); – fourthly, that the notified measures did not infringe Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ 2006 L 318, p. 17), so that the conditions in Section 2.5 of the Communication on public service compensation are fulfilled (recitals 96 to 99 of the contested decision); – fifthly, that the notified measures complied with Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1) and, in particular, with Article 43 thereof, concerning the modification of concession contracts during their term; – sixthly, that the principles, objectives, parameters and methods for calculating the compensation paid to concessionaires did not infringe the principle of non-discrimination, with the result that the conditions in Section 2.7 of the Communication on public service compensation are also fulfilled (recitals 142 and 143 of the contested decision); – seventhly, that the compensation resulting from the modification of the concession contracts did not exceed what was necessary to cover the net cost of discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit, in accordance with Section 2.8 of the Communication on public service compensation. – eighthly, that any concern relating to possible residual distortions of competition was dispelled in accordance with Section 2.9 of the Communication on public service compensation (recitals 167 to 171 of the contested decision).
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 –

Crevier v EUIPO (air freshener)

(Case T‑276/20)

(Community design – Application for a Community design representing an air freshener – Non-compliance with a time limit vis-à-vis EUIPO – Application for restitutio in integrum – Article 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Duty of care)

1. Community designs – Procedural provisions – Restitutio in integrum – Conditions – Due care required by the circumstances – Delegation of administrative tasks relating to renewal of a design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 67(1)) (see paras 17, 19)

2. Community designs – Procedural provisions – Restitutio in integrum – Conditions – Due care required by the circumstances – Exceptional events, which cannot therefore be predicted (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 67(1)) (see paras 20, 21)

3. Community designs – Procedural provisions – Notification – Notification by ordinary mail (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 43) (see paras 29, 32)

4. Community designs – Procedural provisions – Registration procedure – Obligation to observe the time limits prescribed by EUIPO – None – Failure to comply penalised by forfeiture of a right – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulation No 6/2002) (see para. 39)

5. Community designs – Decisions of the Office – 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 6/2002) (see para. 44)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 (Case R 2396/2019-3) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal – Consequences

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 49(1))

(see paras 22, 23)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 April 2021 –

Chanel v EUIPO – Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves)

(Case T‑44/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark representing a circle containing two interlaced curves – Earlier national figurative mark representing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally – Earlier national figurative mark representing a circle containing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – No damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 18, 23-25)

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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

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 – Figurative mark representing a circle containing two interlaced curves – Figurative marks representing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally or a circle containing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-53)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 (Case R 1041/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chanel and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 50)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal – Consequences

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 49(1))

(see paras 11, 12)
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark – Subject matter and scope of Article 15(1), second subpara. (a) of Regulation No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second subpara. (a) and 51(1)(a))

(see paras 22-24)
3.

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Decision to freeze funds – Adopted or maintained on the basis of a judicial procedure carried out by the authorities of a third State concerning the misappropriation of public funds or abuse of office by a public office-holder – Conditions – National decision adopted in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned are well founded – Council’s obligation to verify observance of the rights in question – Infringement (Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2020/373, Annex; Council Regulations No 208/2014, Annex I, and 2020/370) (see paras 74-83, 85-88, 90-92, 104, 105)
Community designs – Surrender and invalidity – Application for a declaration of invalidity – Examination of the application – Competence of EUIPO to examine all the requirements laid down in Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Scope

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 4 to 9, 25(1)(b); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(v))

(see para. 100)
Officials – Members of the contract staff – Recruitment – Probationary period – Decision to dismiss before the end of the probationary period – Obvious inadequacy – Concept – Inappropriate conduct – Included

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 84(2) and (3))

(see paras 70-73, 78-81)
Agriculture – Uniform legislation – Definition, description, presentation, labelling and protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks – Regulation No 110/2008 – Protection of geographical indications – Protection against direct or indirect commercial use – Criteria for assessment – Need for use in identical or similar form to that of the registered indication

(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 110/2008, Art. 16(a), and No 1308/2013, Art. 103(2)(a))

(see paras 33-35)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 November 2021 –

VF International v EUIPO – National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T‑517/20)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC – Earlier non-registered mark geographic – Relative ground for refusal – Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance – Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Non-registered mark or another sign used in the course of trade – Conditions – Interpretation in the light of EU law – Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4) and 53(1)(c)) (see paras 15, 16, 18)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Non-registered mark or another sign used in the course of trade – Use of the sign in trade – Concept – Use in the context of a commercial activity with a view to economic advantage (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4) and 53(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 30)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Non-registered mark or another sign used in the course of trade – Word mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and non-registered mark geographic (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4) and 53(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Non-registered mark or another sign used in the course of trade – Conditions – Local scope of sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4) and 53(1)(c)) (see para. 31)

5. 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. 45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2020 (Case R 1665/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VF International and National Geographic Society.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Duration, renewal, alteration and division of the mark – Renewal of the mark – Time limits – No renewal of the trade mark within the time limit given – Revocation of the trade mark – Application for restitutio in integrum – Duty of care – Obligation to verify whether tax has been paid

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 53(3) and (8) and 104(1))

(see paras 31, 32, 34-37)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2021 –

KY v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T‑433/20)

(Civil service – Officials – Pensions – Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU – Transfer to the EU scheme – Crediting of additional pensionable years – Refund of the amount of pension rights not taken into account in the EU’s pension annuity scheme – Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations – The ‘minimum subsistence figure’ rule – Unjust enrichment)

1. Officials – Pensions – Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU – Transfer to the EU scheme – Additional years of pensionable service – Refusal to refund the person concerned the amount of pension entitlements not taken into account in the scheme for calculating EU pension annuities – Possibility for the person concerned to bring an action for unjust enrichment against the European Union (Arts 268 and 340 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Art. 11(2)) (see paras 35, 36)

2. Officials – Pensions – Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU – Transfer to the EU scheme – Additional years of pensionable service – Refusal to refund the person concerned the amount of pension entitlements not taken into account in the scheme for calculating EU pension annuities – Unjust enrichment of the European Union – Conditions (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Arts 2 and 11(2)) (see paras 38-48)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the implied decision, confirmed by the express decision of 10 October 2019, rejecting the request for refund of the non-credited part of the pension rights acquired by the applicant before she took up her duties on transfer to the EU pension scheme.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;