ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 December 2018 –

Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)

(Case T‑6/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Hamburg Beer Company — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16-19)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Hamburg Beer Company (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 25-28, 43, 51)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark — Scope of protection of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 31)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 49)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 50)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Refusal of registration based on one of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Whether sufficient (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 53)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2017 (Case R 437/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Hamburg Beer Company as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Order of the President of the General Court of 10 December 2018 — Oleari v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Cremona

(Case T‑698/18 R)

(Interim relief — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Inadmissibility)

Interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility criteria — Prima facie admissibility of the main action — Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim relief — Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature to hear the main action — Inadmissibility

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(1))

(see paras 5, 7, 12-14)

Re

Application under Article 278 TFEU for suspension of operation of Tax Assessment 58251/2013, drawn up on 23 October 2013 by the Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Cremona (Provincial Tax Authority, Cremona, Italy).

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 January 2019 –

Prigent v Commission

(Case T‑436/18)

(Action for annulment — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Refusal of the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Act not open to challenge — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Precluded (Arts 258 and 263 TFEU) (see paras 10-15)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings — To be exercised at its discretion — Procedural position of plaintiffs different from that in a competition matter (Arts 258 and 263 TFEU) (see para. 16)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 May 2018 not to take any further action on the applicant’s complaint seeking a declaration that the French authorities infringed Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 –

romwell v EUIPO (twistpac)

(Case T‑662/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark twistpac — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty of care — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 14)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 16)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Meaning — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark twistpac (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 25, 26, 28, 30, 36, 39-41, 45, 53, 57, 58, 62)

6. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Duty of diligence (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(1)) (see para. 55)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2018 (Case R 336/2018-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign twistpac as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
European Parliament — Members — Decision to terminate the mandate and functions of the Vice-Chairperson early — Decision adopted without debate in plenary session — Procedural safeguards — Submission of observations by the Vice-President concerned to the Conference of Presidents — Infringement of the right to be heard — None

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Art. 21)

(see paras 35-38)
Action for annulment — Acts open to challenge — Concept — Refusal by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) to open an enquiry into the conduct of its previous investigations — Not included

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2013, Arts 1 and 9)

(see paras 31, 32, 35-37)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2019 –

Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)

(Case T‑713/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ESIM Chemicals — Earlier national word mark ESKIM — Relative ground for refusal — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Time limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Exceptions — Obligation of care and diligence

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)

(see paras 34-36)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 (Case R 1267/2018-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite and Esim Chemicals.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
29

In the applicant’s view, the contested decision has had a legal effect on it, since, first, the declaration by the applicant for access of 25 April 2018 could not annul the effect erga omnes of the disclosure of the documents at issue for the seven weeks preceding the undertaking contained in that declaration and, second, that declaration, like the decision of 7 June 2018, was capable of binding only the Commission and the applicant for access. The applicant submits that during the abovementioned seven-week period, the documents at issue could be passed to competing operators and used in the national proceedings which have led to questions being referred that are identical to those raised in the joined cases Mobit and Autolinee Toscane (C‑350/17 and C‑351/17). Although the applicant cannot assess the extent of that disclosure, it considers that the principle of sound administration required the Commission to inquire into the use which the applicant for access had made of the documents at issue in order to annul the de facto effect erga omnes of the contested decision if necessary, assuming this were possible. The applicant takes the view that the measures taken by the Commission to rectify its error were manifestly incapable of remedying a disclosure whose effect erga omnes was established and permanent. The applicant submits that the fact that, in the decision of 7 June 2018, the Commission decided not to disclose the documents at issue since that disclosure would undermine the judicial proceedings brought against the Commission in Cases T‑250/18 R and T‑250/18 not only fails to respond to the effect erga omnes of the disclosure, but confirms that the disclosure, which had already caused interference to those judicial proceedings, ought to have been regarded as liable to cause other interference in the future. Accordingly, the applicant considers that it still has an interest in the annulment of the contested decision.
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Status of a third party in relation to the parties – Party represented by a lawyer employed by an entity linked to that party – Party able to exercise effective control over that lawyer – Non-compliance with the requirement of independence

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19)

(see paras 15-17, 21-24, 34)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

Othman v Council

(Case T‑58/19)

(Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

Common foreign and security policy — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant’s erroneous inclusion on a list of persons subject to restrictive measures — Not included

(Arts 24(1), 2d para. and 40 TEU; Art. 275 TFEU; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2018/778 and (CFSP) 2019/806)

(see paras 23, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption 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 its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative nature — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief — Limits

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156)

(see paras 19-22)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2019 –

BMC v Commission and Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

(Case T‑71/19)

(Action for annulment — Research and technological development and space — (Horizon 2020) — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Procedure for call for proposals H2020-CS 2 -CFP08-FRC‑2018-01 — Development of a suction and protection against icing system for the engine of helicopters with rotor blades — Rejection of the proposal submitted by the applicant — Identification of the defendant — Partial inadmissibility)

Action for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Action against the author of the contested measure — Exceptions — Measures adopted under delegated powers imputable to the delegating institution — Scope

(Art. 263 TFEU)

(see para. 23)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the joint undertaking Clean Sky 2 of 6 December 2018 rejecting the request for a review of the assessment of proposal No 831874 ‘smart De-icing bARrier Filter (DwARF)’ submitted by the applicant in call for proposals H2020-CS 2 -CFP08-FRC‑2018-01 and confirming the decision of the joint undertaking Clean Sky 2 of 10 October 2018 by which it rejected that proposal.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Commission.
Order of the President of the General Court of 31 January 2020 –

Shindler and Others v Commission

(Case T‑627/19 R)

(Interim measures — Area of freedom, security and justice — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — UK citizens residing in another EU Member State — Loss of EU citizenship — Action for failure to act — Inadmissibility of the application for interim measures)

1. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 12, 14, 15)

2. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility criteria — Applicant’s interest in obtaining the suspension sought — Application brought against a negative administrative decision — Suspension incapable of altering the applicant’s situation — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 21)

3. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Immigration policy — Status of British nationals after the date of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union — Adoption of interim measures — Competence of the Commission — Application for interim relief seeking an order requiring the Commission to adopt measures to maintain the applicants’ EU citizenship beyond that date or to establish an alternative status — Rejection (Arts 263, 266 and 279 TFEU) (see para. 24)

Re:

Application under Article 279 TFEU and Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, seeking (i) suspension of the Commission’s express refusal of 13 September 2019 to recognise its failure to act, and (ii) an order requiring the Commission to take certain interim measures to maintain the applicants’ EU citizenship beyond the date of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and adopt an interim decision on an alternative status to that citizenship comprising various measures relating to entry, stay, social rights and professional activity applicable in the absence of agreement on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Concept of regulatory act within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Any act of general scope other than legislative acts — Regulation instituting price caps for regulated intra-EU communications — Regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure — Precluded

(Arts 114, 263, fourth para., 289(1) and (3) and 294 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2018/1971)

(see paras 16-22)
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2020 –

Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR)

(Case T‑553/19)

(Action for annulment – EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark PERFECT BAR – Absolute grounds for refusal – No distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision – Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Action for annulment – Judgment ordering annulment – Effects – Obligation to implement – Scope – Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account – Retroactive effect of annulment (Art. 266 TFEU) (see paras 25, 26)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Aim – Need to preserve availability (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 41)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 42-44)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark PERFECT BAR (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 57-60)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2019 (Case R 371/2019-5), relating to the application for registration of the word sign PERFECT BAR as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2020 –

Merly v Parliament

(Case T‑505/19)

(Action for annulment — Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistant — Special leave for the birth of children born via surrogacy — Answer to a request for information — No act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility)

Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Reply from the administration to a request for information regarding the granting of special leave — Not included

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see paras 28-30, 32, 34, 37, 41, 44, 45)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the alleged decision of the Parliament of 30 October 2018 refusing to grant the applicant special leave, equivalent to maternity leave or to the special leave to which adopted parents are entitled.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 – Vanhoudt and Others v EIB

(Case T‑294/19)

(Action for annulment and for damages – Civil service – EIB staff – Reform of the EIB remuneration and salary progression system – Remuneration simulation tool – Act not open to challenge – Purely confirmatory act – No new and substantial facts – Non-material harm – No causal link – Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Decision taken after reconsideration of an earlier decision – Failure to rely on substantial new facts in the request for reconsideration – Act confirming a decision which was not challenged in time – Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 32, 33, 39, 40)

2. Actions brought by officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Time limits – Requirement that action be brought within a reasonable time – Action brought following conciliation procedure – Request for conciliation procedure lodged with an unjustified delay of 13 months – Action inadmissible (Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank) (see paras 46, 47, 49-51, 58, 64)

3. Actions brought by officials – Plea of illegality – Incidental nature – Applicant entitled to bring an action against the measure forming the subject matter of the exception, but did not exercise that right – Not possible to plead illegality as an interlocutory issue (Art. 277 TFEU) (see para. 60)

4. Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Causal link – Cumulative conditions – One of those conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 70)

5. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Causal link – Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 71, 72)

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 decision of the EIB of 31 January 2019 by which the EIB confirmed the decision of the Conciliation Board, which found that the conciliation procedure relating to the applicants’ requests to make available an official printout of the results of the remuneration simulation tool used to calculate the impact of the reforms and of the amicable settlement to compensate for the losses allegedly suffered as a result of the reforms had failed, and, second, compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of that decision of 31 January 2019.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 1 June 2022 –

Del Valle Ruíz and Others v SRB

(Case T‑512/19) ( 1 )

(Action for annulment – Economic and monetary policy – Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) – Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español – No ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español – Lack of direct concern – Manifest inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms – Single Resolution Board (SRB) resolution scheme in respect of a credit institution – Decision not to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation – Measure not bringing about a change in the applicant’s legal position – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 806/2014, Art. 20)

(see paras 43-49)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Antonio Del Valle Ruíz and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex are ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
2.

Rot Front OAO shall bear, in the present proceedings, its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).