ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 March 2019 — TK v Parliament

(Case T‑446/17)

(Civil service — Temporary agents — Change in the activities assigned — Concept of concern — Invitation to an interview — Concept of proceedings — Allegation of psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Liability — Non-material damage)

1. Actions brought by officials — Admissibility criteria — Compliance with the prior administrative procedure (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 42-44, 63)

2. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time limits — Mandatory (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 52, 69)

3. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Administrative decision to reassign — Included — Decision communicated verbally to the person concerned — Inadequate statement of reasons — Irrelevant (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) (see paras 54-56)

4. Action for annulment — Action brought against a decision confirming a decision which was not contested within the time limit for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 70)

5. Actions brought by officials — Action for damages brought without a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 89, 90, 95)

Re

Action based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 26 August 2016 rejecting the applicant’s requests of 28 April 2016 and compensation for non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as well as annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 26 April 2017, in so far as it rejects the application for compensation for non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant, and compensation for that damage.

Operative part

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2019 –

Spain v Commission

(Case T‑49/17)

(EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Financial corrections — Meaning of ‘producer’ — Investments made outside the premises of a producer organisation — Checks carried out before the approval of an operational programme — Check carried out in the authorisation of expenditure — Single financial correction — Flat-rate financial correction — Proportionality — Duty to state reasons)

1. Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Shared by the Commission and the Member State (Commission Regulation No 1580/2007, Arts 105 and 106) (see paras 88-94)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Account-clearing decision for expenses financed by EAGGF and EAFRD (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 238-240)

3. Action for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 303)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016, L 312, p. 26).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94)

(see paras 92, 93)
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 not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 41-44)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 –

FV v Council

(Case T‑153/17 RENV)

(Civil service — Officials — Staff reports — 2014 and 2015 appraisal exercises — Interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

1. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for annulment of a staff report — Official whose service has terminated — Interest in bringing proceedings retained — Condition (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 43, 90 and 91) (see paras 35, 36)

2. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Appraisal less favourable than the previous appraisal — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 43) (see paras 49-52, 59)

3. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Discretion of the assessors — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 43) (see paras 70-72)

4. Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope — Taking into consideration of official’s interests (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 24) (see para. 90)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the applicant’s staff reports for the periods from 1 January to 31 December 2014 and from 1 January to 31 December 2015, which were adopted definitively on 5 December 2016.

Operative part

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;
Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — REACH Regulation — Obligation to register with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Requirement for joint submission of data — Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out — Grant of such an opt-out — Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance — Failure to reach an agreement — Application by analogy of the dispute resolution mechanism — ECHA decision granting access to a joint submission — Legal basis — Difference between the rights and obligations of the companies concerned according to legal basis

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 11(3), 27 and 30(3))

(see paras 72-79)
EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Scope — Application to administrative files relating to procedures for reviewing State aid — General presumption that the exception applies to the right of access to all the documents on the administrative file — Refusal to grant access — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Decision upholding an initial decision

(Arts 15(3) and 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Recital 4 and Arts 1 and 4(2))

(see paras 33-36, 39)
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 in the context of a loan agreement for any installments falling due and remaining unpaid after the date of the application — Hypothetical circumstances not yet established — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 22-26)
EU budget – EU financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme – Conditions of ineligibility of costs – Conflict of interests on the part of the beneficiary – Concept – Consequences – Recovery of the sums advanced to the beneficiary

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2321/2002, Art. 18(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 183)

(see para. 65)
Officials – Competitions – Holding of an open competition – Languages of participation in tests – Limitation of the choice of second language – Discrimination based on language – Justification having regard to the interests of the service – Observance of the principle of proportionality

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 1d(1) and (6), 27 and 28(f) and Annex III, Art. 1(1)(f); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 1)

(see paras 36-42, 66, 69, 70)
95

However, it is for the Council to assess, on the basis of the circumstances of the case, whether it is necessary to investigate further, in particular to seek the disclosure of additional evidence from the Ukrainian authorities if it transpires that the evidence already supplied is insufficient. Information communicated to the Council, either by the Ukrainian authorities themselves or in some other way, might conceivably lead that institution to doubt the adequacy of the evidence already supplied by those authorities. Furthermore, when availing themselves of the opportunity which the persons concerned must be given to submit their comments on the reasons which the Council intends to use to maintain their names on the list at issue, those persons may submit such information, or even exculpatory evidence, which would require the Council to investigate further. In particular, while it is not for the Council to take the place of the Ukrainian judicial authorities in assessing whether the criminal proceedings mentioned in the letters from the PGO are well founded, it is not inconceivable that, in the light, in particular, of the applicant’s observations, the Council might be obliged to seek clarification from those Ukrainian authorities with regard to the material on which those proceedings are based (see judgment of 22 March 2018, Stavytskyi v Council, T‑242/16, not published, EU:T:2018:166, paragraph 95 and the case-law cited).
16

More specifically, in the ‘Competencies’ section, the reporting officer based his assessment of the applicant entirely on the contribution written by the applicant’s former immediate superior. Moreover, in the section ‘Reporting officer’s assessment’, it is mentioned at the outset that the applicant had been reassigned to the Observatory Department only with effect from mid-October 2016. The reporting officer then makes reference to the assessment of the applicant for the first nine months of 2016, which was made by his immediate superior at that time, namely the Executive Director of EUIPO. That assessment reads as follows: ‘… [The applicant’s] performance at [the Operations Department] has been lower in terms of results and loss of productivity especially in the [oppositions] area, but also due to a lack of transparency in terms of measurement of performance and a partial and incomplete communication of the results to [the Executive Director]. His conduct is also criticised as he did not share critical information in an appropriate manner. As [Operations Department] Director, [the applicant] has not taken the necessary measures to tackle the situation, which put the Office in a complex situation in terms of backlogs and has led his [former immediate superior] to lose confidence towards him as a Director. If [the applicant] has the required skills and competences for a managerial position, however, in 2016, he did not show himself capable of taking the right steps to manage the exceptional situation. During the appraisal interview (the president of the staff committee was present), [the applicant] contested a number of facts, findings and figures of production included in [the Executive Director’s] assessment. The only unsatisfactory element agreed by [the applicant] [was] timeliness for [opposition] decisions.’
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal — Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 2017/1001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) to (d))

(see para. 34)
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 — Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 74)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 January 2019 –

Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET)

(Case T‑79/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative EU mark ARBET — Prior national word mark BORBET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

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 ARBET and word mark BORBET (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 34, 40-44)

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 — Identical number of letters composing two word marks — Presence of several letters in the same order (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 December 2017 (Case R 1117/2017-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Borbet and Mr Bekat.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2019 –

Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)

(Case T‑12/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Triumph — Earlier EU word mark TRIUMPH — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical signs — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Similarity between products — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19, 45)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 23)

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 Triumph and TRIUMPH (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 32, 34-37, 40-44, 60, 65-67)

5. 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 — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 55, 57, 58, 61)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 (Case R 665/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Triumph Designs and Zweirad-Center Stadler.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 April 2019 –

Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT)

(Case T‑277/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark PICK & WIN MULTISLOT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(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 — Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 15)

2. 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17, 36)

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 — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

4. 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 19)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark PICK & WIN MULTISLOT (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32, 39-48, 55)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 978/2017-4) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PICK & WIN MULTISLOT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 37-40, 64)
1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 February 2018 (Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ffauf Italia SA and Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex), as regards ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats’ in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, ‘rice, tapioca, sago, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; rice-based snack food’ in Class 30, ‘fresh vegetables’ in Class 31, ‘fresh juices’ in Class 32, ‘retailing and wholesaling in shops, selling via global computer networks, by catalogue, by mail order, by telephone, by radio and television, and via other electronic means of preserved, frozen, dried and cooked vegetables; edible oils, rice, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, vinegar, sauces (condiments)’ in Class 35 and ‘restaurant services (food), self-service restaurants, cafeterias’ in Class 43;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2019 –

XF v Commission

(Case T‑482/18)

(Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Installation allowance — Temporary change of place of employment — Change of residence)

Officials — Reimbursement of expenses — Installation allowance — Conditions for granting — Actual transfer of habitual residence — Concept of habitual residence

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 5(1))

(see paras 20, 21, 23, 24, 28)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 2 October 2017, by which it refused to grant the applicant the benefit of the installation allowance when he moved and took up his appointment at the headquarters of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in Brussels (Belgium).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;