ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 October 2019 –

Walker and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑383/19 R)

(Interlocutory proceedings — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 — Loss of EU citizenship — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility)

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(4)) (see paras 15, 16)

2. Application for interim relief — Admissibility criteria — Prima facie admissibility of the main action — Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures — Action for annulment of a regulation concerning the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on visa requirements — Action brought by UK nationals having exercised their right to freedom of movement and who were unable to participate in the referendum which led to the triggering of the withdrawal procedure — Measure not individually affecting those nationals — Inadmissibility (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(1); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2018/1806, as amended by Regulation 2019/592) (see paras 19-21, 31, 32)

3. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 22, 31, 32)

4. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Person individually affected by a measure general in character — Conditions — Regulation concerning the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on visa requirements — Action brought by UK nationals having exercised their right to freedom of movement and who were unable to participate in the referendum which led to the triggering of the withdrawal procedure — Not individually concerned (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2018/1806, as amended by Regulation 2019/592) (see paras 23-31)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of Regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, as regards the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union (JO 2019 L 103 I, p.1), and second, the adoption of certain interim measures.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
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 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 32, 34, 35, 72-75)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2020 –

Lucaccioni v Commission

(Case T‑507/19)

(Action for annulment — Civil service — Preparatory act — Action for compensation — Action closely related to the action for annulment — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Preparatory act — Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 36-41)

2. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 51)

3. Actions brought by officials — Action for damages brought without a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90 and 91) (see para. 54)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of the decision of the Commission of 13 September 2018 rejecting the application for the recusal of doctor A, a medical practitioner appointed by the Commission to a medical committee established in the context of a request on the part of the applicant seeking recognition of the aggravation of an occupational disease and (ii) compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2020 –

Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T‑841/19)

(Action for annulment – Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment – Suspension of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Act not open to challenge – Preparatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, 27)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to suspend the appeal proceedings pending a definitive decision of the General Court in the case which is likely to influence the pending case – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61(1)) (see paras 25, 26, 28)

Re:

Action brought against the provisional decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 September 2019 (Case R 1009/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International, on the one hand, and Tinnus Enterprises, on the other hand.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2020 –

etc-gaming and Casino-Equipment v Commission

(Case T‑803/19)

(Action for damages – Failure by the European Union to introduce an effective remedy offering suitable redress for a failure on the part of the national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Judicial proceedings – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126) (see paras 6, 25)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 10, 11)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of EU law (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 12)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Omissions of EU institutions – Requirement that a legal duty to act be disregarded (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 13, 14)

5. EU law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Art. 19(1), second para. TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 17)

6. Member States – Obligations – Provision of remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection – Scope (Art. 19(1), second para. TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 18)

7. EU law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51(2)) (see para. 20)

8. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Referral to the Court – Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred – Assessment by the national court – Decision not to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling – Obligation to inform the Court of such a decision – No such obligation (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 22)

9. EU law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals (see para. 23)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the failure by the European Union to introduce an effective remedy offering suitable redress for a failure on the part of the national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief statement 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, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see para. 13)
Actions for failure to act – Position taken within the meaning of Article 265, second para., TFEU before the action brought – Meaning – Letter of the Commission communicating a provisional finding that there is no State aid measure – Included

(Art. 265, second para. TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Arts 12(1), second subpara., and 24(2), second subpara.)

(see paras 39-41)
59

The applicant again considers, regarding the second document at issue, that the Court must confine itself to the matters set out by the Council in the application for a decision on a procedural issue, without being able to rely on the grounds for refusing to grant access to that document as set out in the Council’s decision, which it attached to its observations, refusing to grant a natural person such access. In the alternative, regarding the Council’s assertion, in that decision refusing access, that disclosure of the second document at issue would undermine the European Union’s international relations by revealing [confidential], the applicant considers, while noting that it would be the first time that a document of that nature would not be disclosed to the public, that, from the moment it has allowed a document or information to escape from its walls, the Council may neither rely on such grounds nor claim that the disclosure of that document would adversely affect the discussions regarding that file or [confidential]. In any event, the reference to an alleged weakening of the European Union’s position in the arbitration proceedings initiated against it by the applicant is also not sufficient grounds for the removal of the second document at issue from the file. Indeed, those proceedings are separate from the present judicial proceedings. According to the applicant, neither Regulation No 1049/2001 nor the Rules of Procedure are applicable in those arbitration proceedings, just as the decision of the Court regarding the procedural issue in the present case will not be enforceable in those proceedings.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 December 2020 –

Universität Bremen v REA

(Case T‑660/19)

(Action for annulment – Grant proposal – Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ – Call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 – REA decision rejecting a proposal – No representation by a lawyer – Manifest inadmissibility of the action)

Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Status of a third party in relation to the parties – Entity represented by a person holding and actually performing important functions within it – Non-compliance with the requirement of independence – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 51(1))

(see paras 16-24, 27)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of REA decision Ares(2019) 4590599 of 16 July 2019, rejecting the proposal presented by the applicant within the framework of the call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 13, 21)
Fundamental rights – Right to effective judicial protection – Review of legality of EU measures – Procedures – Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure – Possibility of using an annulment action or reference for a preliminary ruling on validity

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7))

(see paras 53, 54)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 May 2021 –

König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer)

(Case T‑332/20)

(EU trade mark – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark Royal Bavarian Beer – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Right to be heard – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Unitary character of the EU trade mark – Article 1(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1)) (see paras 20, 23)

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 – Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 33, 35, 36)

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 – Aim – Need to preserve availability (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 34)

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 – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 37, 47, 52)

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 Royal Bavarian Beer (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 46, 58, 59)

6. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – The Office’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 54, 56, 57)

7. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account – Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries – Decisions not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 65)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2020 (Case R 1714/2019-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Royal Bavarian Beer.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 –

KC v Commission

(Case T‑580/20)

(Action for damages – State aid – Complaint – Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (see paras 16, 17)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of EU law – Requirement that the institutions manifestly and seriously disregard the limits of their discretion – Failure of the Commission to initiate the formal investigation procedure – No illegality capable of rendering the EU non-contractually liable (see paras 18-21, 29, 30)

3. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review – Difficulties of assessment – Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure – Serious difficulties – Decision not taken within a reasonable time (Art. 108(2) and (3) TFEU) (see paras 23-25)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the Commission’s failure to initiate, in a timely manner, the formal investigation procedure following the applicant’s State aid complaint (SA.46963).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the President of the General Court of 19 March 2021 –

Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission

(Case T‑742/20 R)

(Application for interim relief – Plant protection products – Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 – Non-renewal of approval of the active substance mancozeb – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable harm – Financial loss – Serious nature of the harm – Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company – Assessment in the light of the size and turnover of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs – Activity in highly regulated markets – Examination of the circumstances of each case (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 31, 32, 36, 37)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Financial loss – Serious nature of the harm – Assessment in the absence of information concerning the size of the undertaking concerned – Financial harm which is objectively significant sustained by an undertaking owing to an alleged obligation to make a commercial choice within a disadvantageous timescale – Risk that should normally be borne by an undertaking operating in a highly regulated market (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 33, 34, 42)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Financial loss – Irreparable alteration in market share – Included – Conditions – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 52, 54)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 of 14 December 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance mancozeb, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2020 L 423, p. 50).

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 –

Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO – Huawei Technologies (GT8)

(Case T‑420/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark GT8 – Earlier EU figurative mark GT – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Relevant public – Level of attention – Action manifestly well founded)

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 28, 29)

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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 31)

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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-37)

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 mark GT 8 and figurative mark GT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42-46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1611/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part

1. The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1611/2019-4) is annulled.