ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Abdulkarim v Council

(Case T-559/17) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment))

(2019/C 103/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Veiga and I. Pouli, then by I. Pouli and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 15), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), in so far as those measures relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as last amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they relate to Mr Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim;

2. Orders that the effects of Decisions 2017/917 and 2018/778 be maintained with regard to Mr Abdulkarim until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until any dismissal of that appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)

(Case T-656/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials - Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL - Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ludwig Manfred Jacob (Heidesheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 (Case R 2067/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Mr Jacob.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 2067/2016-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA;

3. Orders Mr Ludwig Manfred Jacob to bear his own costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Clestra Hauserman v Parliament

(Case T-725/17) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Works relating to the ‘Removable partitioning - doors’ of the project to extend and modernise the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low tender - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)

(2019/C 164/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Clestra Hauserman (Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France) (represented by: J. Gehin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Naglič and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, claim under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 24 August 2017 adopted in the context of tendering procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-16-AO8 concerning Lot 55, entitled ‘Removable partitioning — doors’, of the project to extend and modernise the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg, rejecting the applicant’s bid and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, claim under Article 268 TFEU for compensation in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Clestra Hauserman to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Pethke v EUIPO

(Case T-169/17) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Assignment - Reassignment of a Head of Service to a post of principal administrator - Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations - Interests of the service - Equivalence of posts - Discrimination on grounds of sex - Proportionality - Action for damages - Inadmissibility - Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure)

(2019/C 139/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ralph Pethke (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EUIPO of 17 October 2016 changing the assignment of the applicant from the post of director of the ‘Operations’ department to a post in the EUIPO ‘Observatory’ department and, secondly, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Mr Ralph Pethke to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

(Case T-224/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark Bio proof ADAPTA - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

(2019/C 187/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, by G. Marín Raigal and by E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 2521/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — L v Parliament

(Case T-59/17) (1)

(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistant - Termination of the contract - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Outside activity - Manifest error of assessment - Claim for damages)

(2019/C 148/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, Agents)

Re:

Concerning, first, an application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 24 June 2016 terminating the applicant’s contract of employment as an accredited parliamentary assistant and, secondly, an application for damages for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the Parliament’s decision of 24 June 2016 to terminate L’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — KPN v Commission

(Case T-370/17) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services - Full-function joint venture - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Relevant market - Vertical effects - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)

(2019/C 246/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KPN BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. van Ginneken and G. Béquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, J. Szczodrowski and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: VodafoneZiggo Group Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom), Liberty Global Europe Holding BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: W. Knibbeler, E. Raedts and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 5165 final of 3 August 2016 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Vodafone Group and Liberty Global Europe Holding of joint control of a full-function joint venture to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7978 — Vodafone — Liberty Global — Dutch JV).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders KPN BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, VodafoneZiggo Group Holding BV, Vodafone Group plc and Liberty Global Europe Holding BV.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019. — UPF v Commission

(Case T-747/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by France in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid - Concept of economic activity - Obligation to state reasons - Distortions of competition and effect on trade between Member States - Principle of sound administration)

(2019/C 220/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union des Ports de France — UPF (Paris, France) (represented by C. Vannini and E. Moraïtou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by B. Stromsky and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2116 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38398 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by France — Taxation of ports in France (OJ 2017 L 332, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Union des ports de France — UPF to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2019 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission

(Case T-828/17) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Recovery of overpayment - Article 85, first paragraph of the Staff Regulations - Patent irregularity)

(2019/C 295/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Quadri di Cardano (Alicante, Spain) (represented initially by N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, then by N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by T. Bohr and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 28 February 2017 on the recovery of sums unduly paid to the applicant in respect of the expatriation allowance and annual travel expenses for the period of activity at the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME), from 16 May 2014 to 15 July 2016, and, so far as necessary, of the salary slips ‘corrected’ further to that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Alessandro Quadri di Cardano to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — RV v Commission

(Case T-167/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Leave in the interests of the service - Automatic retirement - Measure not open to challenge - Partial inadmissibility - Scope of the law - Court acting of its own motion - Literal, contextual and teleological interpretation)

(2019/C 263/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RV (represented by: initially, J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, subsequently, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): European Parliament (represented by: initially, J. Steele and D. Nessaf, subsequently, J. Steele and M. Rantala, and finally, J. Steele and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2016 to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service pursuant to Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and simultaneously to retire the applicant automatically pursuant to the fifth paragraph thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 21 December 2016 to place RV on leave in the interests of the service and simultaneously to retire RV automatically;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by RV, including those incidental to the proceedings for interim measures;

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

(1) OJ C 144 of 8.5.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Topor-Gilka and WO Technopromexport v Council

(Joined Cases T-721/17 and T-722/17) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment)

(2019/C 383/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant in Case T-721/17: Sergey Topor-Gilka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Meyer, lawyer)

Applicant in Case T-722/17: OOO WO Technopromexport (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Meyer, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and E. Salia, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by T. Henze, J. Möller and R. Kanitz, and subsequently by J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Baumgart, M. Kellerbauer, T. Ramopoulos and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 of 4 August 2017 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 203 I, p. 5), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/392 of 12 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 69, p. 48), and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1237 of 12 September 2018 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 231, p. 27).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Sergey Topor-Gilka and OOO WO Technopromexport to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)

(Case T-772/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Café del Mar - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 305/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Café del Mar, SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Josep de sa Talaia, Spain) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1540/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González and, on the other, Mr Guiral Broto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1540/2015-5).

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar SC, Mr José Les Viamonte and Mr Carlos Andrea González in the proceedings before the General Court.

3. Orders Mr Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Printeos and Others v Commission

(Case T-466/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Annulment in part on the ground of infringement of the obligation to state reasons - Amending decision - Settlement procedure - Fines - Basic amount - Exceptional adjustment - 10 % ceiling on the total turnover - Article 23 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Ne bis in idem principle - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Cumulation of penalties - Proportionality - Fairness - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2019/C 413/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Printeos Cartera Industrial, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France (Fleury-Mérogis, France), Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann et P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4112 final of 16 June 2017 amending Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) and, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — BASF Grenzach v ECHA

(Case T-125/17) (1)

(REACH - Evaluation of substances - Triclosan - ECHA decision requesting further information - Article 51(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Action brought before the Board of Appeal - Task of the Board of Appeal - Adversarial nature of the procedure - Scope of the review - Intensity of the review - Powers of the Board of Appeal - Article 93(3) of Regulation No 1907/2006 - First sentence of Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Relevant information - Proportionality - Article 25 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006 - Data obtained under relevant circumstances - Persistence - Neurotoxicity - Reproductive toxicity - Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 771/2008 - Delay in the submission of a scientific opinion)

(2019/C 406/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BASF Grenzach GmbH (Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany) (represented: initially by K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers, and subsequently by K. Nordlander and K. Le Croy, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented: initially by M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Röcke, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, W Broere and C. Jacquet, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Thorning and M. Wolff, and subsequently by M. Wolff, J. Nymann-Lindegren and P. Ngo, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by T. Henze and D. Klebs, and subsequently by D. Klebs, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Decision A-018-2014 of the Board of Appeal of the ECHA of 19 December 2016 in so far as it partially dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the ECHA decision of 19 September 2014 to request further information about the substance Triclosan (CAS 3380-34-5) and in which it fixed the deadline for presenting that information as 26 December 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BASF Grenzach GmbH to bear its own costs, as well as the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.