ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Pech v Council

(Case T-252/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Protection of legal advice - First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Protection of the decision-making process - Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council’s Legal Service)

(2021/C 242/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laurent Pech (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and T. McGrath, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pavlaki and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: O. Simonsson, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, J. Lundberg, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 12 February 2019 refusing to grant full access to the opinion of its Legal Service contained in document ST 13593 2018 INIT concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 May 2018 on the protection of the European Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (COM(2018) 324 final).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 12 February 2019 refusing full access to document ST 13593 2018 INIT, containing the opinion of the Legal Service of the Council concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (COM(2018) 324 final);

2. Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Laurent Pech;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-555/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 242/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden) (represented by: P. Nihlmark and L. Zacharoff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food AB;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi;

3. Orders Fontana Food to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — DI v ECB

(Case T-514/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Reimbursement of medical expenses and education expenses - Forgery - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal - Criminal proceedings - No further action taken - Acquittal - Competence of the Executive Board - Legal certainty - Time-barred disciplinary proceedings - Adage according to which ‘disciplinary proceedings arising out of a criminal offence must await the outcome of the criminal trial’ - Presumption of innocence - Impartiality of the Disciplinary Committee - Error of law - Probative value of the evidence - Reasonable time - Proportionality of the penalty - Intensity of the judicial review - Liability)

(2021/C 297/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DI (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Malfrère and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decision of 7 May 2019 dismissing the applicant without notice on disciplinary grounds and of its decision of 25 June 2019 refusing to reopen the disciplinary proceedings, second, an order that the applicant be reinstated as from 11 May 2019 and, third, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions and by reason of the length of the disciplinary proceedings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders DI to bear his own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the European Central Bank (ECB), which shall bear the rest of its costs.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Franz Schröder v EUIPO — RDS Design (MONTANA)

(Case T-854/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MONTANA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Admission of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 278/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark) (represented by: J. Viinberg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 (Case R 2393/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Franz Schröder and RDS Design.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders RDS Design ApS to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Nike European Operations Netherlands and Converse Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-648/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid implemented by the Netherlands in favour of Nike - Tax rulings - Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Arm’s length principle - Advantage - Selective nature - Equal treatment - Good administration - Inadequate preliminary examination - Serious difficulties - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 338/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nike European Operations Netherlands BV (Hilversum, Netherlands), Converse Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Martens and D. Colgan, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 6 final of 10 January 2019 on State aid SA.51284 (2018/NN) — Netherlands — Possible State aid in favour of Nike, initiating the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nike European Operations Netherlands BV and Converse Netherlands BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — Health Product Group v EUIPO — Bioline Pharmaceutical (Enterosgel)

(Case T-678/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Enterosgel - No bad faith - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 310/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Health Product Group sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, M. Stępień and A. Przytuła, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bioline Pharmaceutical AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Grucelski, H. Gajek and M. Furmańska, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2019 (Case R 482/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Health Product Group and Bioline Pharmaceutical.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Health Product Group sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission

(Case T-185/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Harmonised standards - Documents concerning four harmonised standards approved by CEN - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Protection deriving from copyright)

(2021/C 368/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Public.Resource.Org, Inc., (Sebastopol, California, United States), Right to Know CLG (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, A. Grünwald, J. Hackl and C. Nüßing, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, F. Thiran and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), and 14 other interveners, whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: U. Karpenstein, K. Dingemann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 639 final of 22 January 2019 refusing to grant a request for access to four harmonised standards adopted by CEN.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Public.Resource.Org, Inc. and Right to Know CLG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the Asociación Española de Normalización (UNE), the Asociaţia de Standardizare din România (ASRO), the Association française de normalisation (AFNOR), Austrian Standards International (ASI), the British Standards Institution (BSI), the Bureau de normalisation/Bureau voor Normalisatie (NBN), Dansk Standard (DS), the Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (DIN), the Koninklijk Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut (NEN), the Schweizerische Normen-Vereinigung (SNV), Standard Norge (SN), the Suomen Standardisoimisliitto ry (SFS), the Svenska institutet för standarder (SIS) and the Institut za standardizaciju Srbije (ISS) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Representation of red shoe lace aglets)

(Case T-298/19) (1)

(EU Trade Mark - Application for a figurative EU trade mark representing red shoe lace aglets - Rejection of application - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Essentially identical previous application - No res judicata - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 24/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, S. Hanne and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2019 (Case R 1170/2018-5), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing red shoe lace aglets as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Think Schuhwerk GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Tempus Energy Germany and T Energy Sweden v Commission

(Case T-167/19) (1)

(State aid - Polish electricity market - Capacity mechanism - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid scheme - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Concept of doubts - Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Serious difficulties - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 471/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Tempus Energy Germany GmbH (Berlin, Germany), T Energy Sweden AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Derenne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, acting as Agents

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Ryan and A. Klosok, Solicitors, and by T. Janssens and K. Bojarojć-Bartnicka, lawyers), Enel X Polska z o.o. (Warsaw) (represented by: V. Cannizzaro, S. Ventura and L. Caroli, lawyers), Enspirion sp. z o.o. (Gdańsk, Poland) (represented by: A. Czech, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 601 final of 7 February 2018 not to raise objections to the aid scheme for the capacity mechanism in Poland, on the ground that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State aid SA.46100 (2017/N)).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tempus Energy Germany GmbH and T Energy Sweden AB to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A., Enel X Polska z o.o. and Enspirion sp. z o.o.;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Leonardo v Frontex

(Case T-849/19) (1)

(Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Aerial surveillance services - Action for annulment - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability)

(2022/C 128/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Leonardo SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Esposito, F. Caccioppoli and G. Calamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard, C. Georgiadis, A. Gras and S. Drew, acting as Agents, and by M. Umbach, F. Biebuyck, V. Ost and M. Clarich, lawyers)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the contract notice FRONTEX/OP/888/2019/JL/CG of 18 October 2019 entitled ‘Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) for Medium Altitude Long Endurance Maritime Aerial Surveillance’, as amended, of the documents included in the annex thereto, of the questions and answers published by Frontex, of the minutes of the Information Meeting held at Frontex’s premises on 28 October 2019, of the decision awarding that contract and of any other prior, associated or subsequent act, and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Leonardo SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Dyson and Others v Commission

(Case T-127/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Energy - Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners - Energy efficiency - Measurement method - Annulment by the General Court - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 73/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: E. Batchelor, T. Selwyn Sharpe and M. Healy, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, Y. Marinova and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the unlawfulness of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dyson Ltd and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2022 — Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca v Commission

(Case T-245/19) (1)

(Safeguard measures - Market for steel products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Threat of serious injury - Manifest error of assessment - Initiation of a safeguard investigation - Competence of the Commission - Rights of the defence)

(2022/C 284/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca OAO (Rîbniţa, Moldova) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca OAO, seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ 2019 L 31, p. 27), in so far as it applies to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca OAO is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HB v EIB

(Case T-757/19) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Complaint alleging psychological harassment - Administrative enquiry - Decision dismissing the complaint - Decision rejecting the request for conciliation - Right to be heard - Liability)

(2022/C 198/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of the EIB of 20 June and 10 October 2019 rejecting, respectively, a complaint of harassment and intimidation, and a request for conciliation, and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 20 June 2019 of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB);

2. Orders the EIB to pay HB the sum of EUR 1 000 in respect of the loss of opportunity to settle the dispute amicably;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HB.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

(Case T-655/19) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices - Limiting and controlling output and sales - Decision adopted following the annulment of previous decisions - Holding of a new hearing in the presence of the competition authorities of the Member States - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Reasonable time - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 482/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (Odolo, Italy), Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (Odolo) (represented by: D. Fosselard, D. Slater and G. Carnazza, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, G. Conte and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents, and by P. Manzini, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to an infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars), in so far as it finds that the applicants infringed that provision and in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 5,125 million upon them jointly and severally.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.