ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/19

Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Argus Security Projects v Commission

(Case T-266/14) (1)

((Public service contracts - Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 314/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Union Assistance Mission (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/41

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v EUIPO — Meissen Keramik (MEISSEN)

(Case T-789/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MEISSEN - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks MEISSEN, MEISSENER PORZELLAN, HAUS MEISSEN, Meissen and Meissener Porzellan - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character and reputation of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 270/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meissen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meissen) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and K. Gennen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2014 (Joined Cases R 1182/2013-4 and R 1245/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen and Meissen Keramik.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/28

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — PT Musim Mas v Council

(Case T-80/14) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia - Definitive collection of provisional anti-dumping duties - Definitive anti-dumping duties - Rights of the defence - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))

(2016/C 402/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, A. Verdegay Mena, lawyers, and C. Humpe, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas);

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by PT Musim Mas;

3. Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/24

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Goldfish and Others v Commission

(Case T-54/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimps - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price-fixing and allocation of sales volumes - Admissibility of evidence - Use of secret recordings of telephone conversations as evidence - Assessment of ability to pay - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2016/C 392/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Goldfish BV (Zoutkamp, Netherlands), Heiploeg BV (Zoutkamp), Heiploeg Beheer BV (Zoutkamp) and Heiploeg Holding BV (Zoutkamp) (represented by: P. Glazener and B. Winters, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking, first, for 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 applicants, and, secondly, for reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on those applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Goldfish BV, Heiploeg BV, Heiploeg Beheer BV and Heiploeg Holding BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/37

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — European Children's Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública v EACEA

(Case T-724/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the action programme ‘Lifelong Learning (2007-2013)’ - ‘Brand & Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector’ project - Action for annulment - Act not subject to appeal - Act forming part of a purely contractual agreement from which it is indissociable - Inadmissibility - Ineligible expenditure - Reimbursement of the sums paid - Audit report))

(2016/C 419/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: European Children’s Fashion Association (Valencia, Spain) and Instituto de Economía Pública (Valencia) (represented by: A. Haegeman, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and A. Jaume, acting as Agents)

Re:

Primarily, application, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration that the first application is not required to reimburse the sum paid to it by EACEA under the agreement for the execution of the ‘Brand & Merchandising Manager for SMEs in the Children’s Product Sector’ project, or, in the alternative, application for annulment, firstly, of EACEA’s pre-information letter of 1 August 2014 informing the first applicant that it had to reimburse the sum of EUR 82 378,81 following the audit of the that project and, secondly, of debit note No 3241401420, issued by EACEA on 5 August 2014, seeking the reimbursement of that sum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders European Children’s Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/29

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Unitec Bio v Council

(Case T-111/14) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))

(2016/C 402/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unitec Bio SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and G. Bathory, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern Unitec Bio SA;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Unitec Bio;

3. Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/23

Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2017 — Deza v ECHA

(Case T-189/14) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the ECHA containing information submitted by an undertaking in connection with its application for authorisation to use di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) - Decision to disclose certain information considered confidential by the applicant - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Concept of private life - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 063/31)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by P. Dejl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by A. Iber, T. Zbihlej and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan and W. Broere, acting as Agents, and by M. Mašková, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, P. Ondrůšek and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents), and ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), Vereniging Health Care Without Harm Europe (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA’s decisions of 24 January 2014 concerning the disclosure of certain information submitted by the applicant in the course of the procedure relating to the application for authorisation to use di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Deza, a.s., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those relating to the application for interim measures;

3) Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

4) Orders ClientEarth, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Vereniging Health Care Without Harm Europe to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/24

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

(Case T-162/14) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Undertakings - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Exporting country - Scope of the investigation - Sampling - Normal value - Definition of the product concerned - Time limit for the adoption of a decision on a market economy treatment claim - Temporal application of new provisions - Injury - Causal link))

(2017/C 121/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH (Munich, Germany), Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. (Changshu, China), Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. (Luoyang, China) Csi Cells Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (Suzhou) (represented initially by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, and subsequently by A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission, represented initially by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. to bear their 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 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/40

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Construlink v EUIPO — Wit-Software (GATEWIT)

(Case T-351/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GATEWIT - Earlier EU figurative mark wit software - Earlier national business name Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Lopes Rocha and A. Bertrand, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: F. Teixeira Baptista and C. Tomás Pedro, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1059/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel and Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for the purposes of the present proceedings and by Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/21

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)

(Case T-211/14 RENV) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Form of an oven - Genuine use of a mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1), and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Nature of use of the mark - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))

(2017/C 402/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Toni Klement (Dippoldiswalde, Germany) (represented by J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bullerjan GmbH (Isernhagen-Kirchhorst, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2014 (Case R 927/2013-1) relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Klement and Bullerjan

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Toni Klement to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/15

Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2017 –Efler and Others v Commission

(Case T-754/14) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties - Article 11(4) TEU - Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 202/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: B. Kempen, professor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Laitenberger and H. Krämer, subsequently by H. Krämer and finally by H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposal for a citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Mr Michael Efler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Furukawa Electric v Commission

(Case T-444/14) (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 - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by C. Pouncey, A. Luke and L. Geary, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

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 applicant and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

3. Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-561/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 –One of Us and Others v Commission (Institutional law — European Citizens’ Initiative — Research policy — Public health — Development cooperation — EU financing of activities involving the destruction of human embryos — Commission communication pursuant to Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Actions for annulment — Capacity to bring legal proceedings — Challengeable act — Partial inadmissibility — Judicial review — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 –One of Us and Others v Commission

(Case T-561/14) ( 1 )

‛(Institutional law — European Citizens’ Initiative — Research policy — Public health — Development cooperation — EU financing of activities involving the destruction of human embryos — Commission communication pursuant to Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Actions for annulment — Capacity to bring legal proceedings — Challengeable act — Partial inadmissibility — Judicial review — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)’

Parties

Applicant: European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex (represented initially by: C. de La Hougue, and subsequently by J. Paillot, lawyers, and finally by P. Diamond, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Laitenberger and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szwarc, A. Miłkowska and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: U. Rösslein and E. Waldherr, and subsequently by U. Rösslein and R. Crowe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Communication COM(2014) 355 final of 28 May 2014 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Uno di noi’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.