ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
6.

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–Similarity of the marks concerned–Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para 35)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 — Acquafarm v Commission

(Case T‑458/16)

(Non-contractual liability - Fisheries - Operational programme financed by the European Union - EU rules prohibiting imports of crustaceans from Australia - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Omission to act - Legitimate expectations)

1. Judicial proceedings—Examination of the substance before examination of admissibility—Lawfulness (see para. 24)

2. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Unlawfulness—Injury—Causal link—Cumulative conditions—One of the conditions not satisfied—Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 40, 41)

3. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals—Institution having no discretion—Mere infringement of EU law sufficient (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 42, 43)

4. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Legislative measure—Sufficiently serious breach of EU law—Individual act or omission—No impact on the requirement of a sufficient serious infringement (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 44)

5. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Omissions of EU institutions—Requirement that a legal duty to act be disregarded (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 47)

6. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Unlawfulness—Sufficiently serious breach of EU law—Erroneous assessment by the undertaking concerned of its own legal situation—No obligation on the institution to inform that undertaking that its activity is unlawful—Risk having to be borne by the undertaking (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 53)

7. EU law—Principles—Protection of legitimate expectations—Conditions and limits—Inaction by the Commission—Maintenance of an existing situation having to be changed in the context of its discretion—No legitimate expectations—Protection refused to any person committing a manifest infringement of the rules in force (see paras 55, 56, 58, 59)

Re:

ACTION under Article 268 TFEU claiming compensation for the injury allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the impossibility of completing an aquaculture project involving crustaceans from Australia and co-financed on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (OJ 2006 L 223, p. 1) by reason of the ban on importing those crustaceans in accordance with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 of 12 December 2008 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards conditions and certification requirements for the placing on the market and the import into the Community of aquaculture animals and products thereof and laying down a list of vector species (OJ 2008 L 337, p. 41).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2017 — De Nicola v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T‑99/16)

(Non-contractual liability - Civil service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Failure to comply with the rules governing the right to a fair hearing - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Reasonable time - Claims for compensation made in the context of an action pending before the Civil Service Tribunal - Partial referral of the case to the General Court)

1. Non-contractual liability-Conditions-Unlawfulness-Injury-Causal link-One of the conditions not satisfied-Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 21-26)

2. Judicial proceedings-Application initiating proceedings-Formal requirements-Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute-Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based-Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution-Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and (86)) (see paras 27, 28, 44, 61)

3. Judicial proceedings-Duration of the proceedings before the General Court-Reasonable time-Criteria for assessment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.) (see paras 53-56)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of, first, the psychological harassment to which he has been subjected by the European Investment Bank (EIB), on the one hand, and the supposedly unfair nature of the proceedings before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal and the General Court to which he has been a party, on the other, and, second, the allegedly excessive duration of those proceedings.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — Campo and Others v EEAS

(Case T‑577/16)

(Civil Service — Officials — Agents — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions — Decision reducing the allowance for living conditions in Montenegro from 15% to 10% — Plea of illegality)

1. Plea of illegality—Scope—Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded—General measure providing the basis of the contested decision—Need for a legal connection between the contested measure and the contested general measure (Art. 277 TFEU) (see para. 25)

2. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Meaning—Salary or pension statement reflecting a decision the subject-matter of which is purely financial—Included—Salary or pension statement merely confirmative of prior administrative decisions—Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) (see paras 31-36)

3. Officials—Remuneration—Financial rules applicable to officials posted to a third country—Allowance for living conditions—Conditions for granting—Obligation for the institutions to observe the procedure to set the allowance for living conditions—Infringement—Consequences (Staff Regulations, Annex X, Art. 10) (see paras 58, 59)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary slips in respect of March 2015 and of those drawn up afterwards in so far as those salary slips apply the decision of the EEAS of 23 February 2015 reducing, with effect from 1 January 2015, the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Montenegro.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the salary slips for March 2015 of Mr Alessandro Campo and of the other officials and agents of the European External Action Service (EEAS), whose names are set out in the annex drawn up by the EEAS on the date on which the action was brought, in so far as those slips apply the decision of the EEAS of 23 February 2015 reducing, with effect from 1 January 2015, the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Montenegro;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 – sheepworld v EUIPO (Alles wird gut)

(Case T-622/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Alles wird gut — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks devoid of any distinctive character–Assessment of distinctive character–Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks devoid of any distinctive character–Marks constituted of advertising slogans–Distinctive character–Application of specific criteria for assessment–Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22)

3. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks devoid of any distinctive character–Marks constituted of advertising slogans–Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-25)

4. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks devoid of any distinctive character–Word mark Alles wird gut (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 33-39, 44)

5. EU trade mark–Appeals procedure–Action before the EU judicature–Jurisdiction of the General Court–Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it–Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 45)

6. EU trade mark–Decisions of the Office–Principle of equal treatment–Principle of sound administration–EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice–Principle of legality (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 47, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 (Case R 212/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Alles wird gut as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 7 February 2018 — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — Krasnyiy oktyabr (Representation of a crayfish)

(Case T‑775/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a crayfish — Earlier international registration of the figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 62, 69)

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—Figurative mark representing a crayfish and figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 37-57, 70-72)

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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2507/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Moscow Confectionary Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ and Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’,

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials—Vacancy—Post of head of unit—Procedure before the pre-selection panel—Observance of principle of impartiality—Scope—Observations on the preference of the nationality of the candidate, made by the director of the unit at issue prior to the start of the selection procedure—Sarcastic smile given by the president of the panel during the interview with the unsuccessful candidate—Infringement of the principle of impartiality

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 27)

(see paras 73-75, 80-83, 86, 87, 94)
It follows from Article 7(1) of the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations adopted by the Commission that, as regards the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired by an official by way of a national or international pension scheme, decisions crediting pensionable years are based on the amount of transferable capital as at the date of registration of the application, as supplied to the appointing authority by the competent national or international authorities, after deduction, where applicable, of an amount representing capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the date of the actual transfer. It is also apparent from that wording that it is only where the competent national or international body is unable to supply the value of the pension rights as at the date of registration of the application that simple interest is deducted from the updated capital actually transferred. Thus, in a situation where the competent national or international authorities have supplied the appointing authority with the value of the pension rights as at the date of registration of the application, the appointing authority is not entitled to make any deduction from that amount and the calculation of years of pensionable service under the Staff Regulations must therefore be made on the basis of the full amount.

(see para. 23)
Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Restrictive measures against Syria—Prohibition of entry and transit and freezing of funds of certain persons and entities responsible for violent repression against the civilian population—Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned—Whether summary statement of reasons sufficient

(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2016/850 and (CFSP) 2017/917; Council Regulations No 2016/840 and No 2017/907)

(see paras 41-47)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2018 –

Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA)

(Case T‑362/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark XENASA — Earlier EU word mark PENTASA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 19, 60)

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—Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Word marks XENASA and PENTASA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41-43, 50-53, 57, 58, 68-71)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 (Case R 3264/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferring and Tillotts Pharma.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2016 (Case R 3264/2014-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tillotts Pharma AG;
2.

EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Absolute grounds for invalidity—Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application—Criteria for assessment—Taking into account of all relevant factors at the time of filing the application for registration—Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign—Intention of the applicant—Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue—Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark—Chronology of events characterising the filing of the trade mark application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 20-25, 36, 41)
Judicial proceedings—Decision or regulation replacing the contested measure in the course of proceedings—New factor—Application for extension of the initial pleadings—Time-limit for the submission of such an application—Point from which time starts to run—Date of communication of the new measure to the parties concerned

(Art. 263, sixth para. TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 59, 60 and 84(1))

(see paras 23-25, 27)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 September 2018 –

De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑788/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Leave — Adoption of the Parliament’s new Guidelines on leave management — Individual decisions taken under the new guidelines in the interpretation services — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Interests of the service — Plea of illegality)

1. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Definition — Parliament’s Guidelines on leave management — Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 25-28, 31-33, 36)

2. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative procedure — Failure by the administration to observe the deadlines for responding — Consequences (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91(3)) (see paras 47-49)

3. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see para. 50)

4. Officials — Organization of departments — Assignment of staff — Administration’s discretion — Scope — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 57, 58)

5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Abstract statement — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76) (see paras 72, 73)

6. Plea of illegality — Scope — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — Parliament’s Guidelines on leave management — Admissibility — Conditions — Legal link between the contested measure and the Guidelines (see paras 79-82, 169)

7. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 88, 89)

8. Officials — Vested rights — Start — Conditions — Origin in the Staff Regulations (see paras 104-106)

9. Officials — Equal treatment — Meaning — Leave management — Different conditions for staff interpreters and other officials — Lawfulness — Breach of the principle of equal treatment — None (see paras 134-137)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of Parliament’s guidelines of 21 March 2016 on the implementation, for interpretation services, of Article 4(5) of the internal rules on leave management; secondly, of Parliament’s decision of 12 April 2016 accepting Ms Françoise Joostens’ application for leave, but including the requested days of leave within a quota of three and a half days; thirdly, of Parliament’s decision of 2 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mrs Joostens and, fourthly, of the Parliament’s decision of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.
Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Support for restructuring and conversion in the wine sector — Controls in the wine sector — On-the-spot checks — Possibility to proceed with sampling — Limits — Obligation to carry out systematic on-the-spot checks before the payment of investment aid — Scope

(Council Regulations No 1234/2007, Art. 103u, and No 479/2008, Art. 15; Commission Regulations No 1975/2006, Arts 25 and 27, and No 555/2008, Arts 19 and 77(5))

(see paras 56, 60-63)
Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Reductions and exclusions where the rules on cross-compliance are not observed — Requirement for each agricultural holding concerned to have been subject to an inspection — None — Application of a financial correction at a level higher than the maximum limit set for reductions by Regulation No 1122/2009 — Breach of principle of proportionality — None

(Council Regulations No 1290/2005, Art. 31(2) and No 73/2009; Commission Regulation No 1122/2009, Arts 50, 51 and 71(4))

(see paras 42-44, 47, 49, 50)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 November 2018 –

Di Bernardo v Commission

(Case T‑811/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Professional experience — Liability)

1. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25) (see paras 35, 36)

2. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Complete lack of reasoning — Regularisation after the action has been brought — Not permissible (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see paras 37, 38)

3. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Injury — Causal link — Cumulative conditions (Art. 340 TFEU) (see para. 60)

4. Actions brought by officials — Actions for damages — Annulment of the contested measure not providing adequate compensation for material harm — Compensation for loss of an opportunity to be recruited — Criteria (Art. 340 TFEU) (see para. 61)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 10 August 2016 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 10 August 2016 not to include Mr Danilo Di Bernardo on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(b) and (d))

(see paras 20, 24, 43, 44)