ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — UG v Commission

(Case T-571/17) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Termination with notice - Grounds for termination - Conduct in the service and attitude at work incompatible with the interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Review of the accuracy of the facts - Lack of evidence - Liability - Material harm - Payment of salaries owed)

(2020/C 175/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UG (represented by: M. Richard and P. Junqueira de Oliveira, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, L. Radu Bouyon and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 17 October 2016 by which the Commission’s Office for ‘Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg’ (OIL) terminated the applicant’s employment contract pursuant to Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union as from 20 August 2017 and, second, compensation for the material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following that decision and the non-material harm she allegedly suffered as a result of the degrading treatment she claims to have been subject to because of her trade union activity and her period of parental leave.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 17 October 2016 terminating the contract of indefinite duration of Ms UG;

2. Orders the parties to forward to the Court, within three months of the delivery of this interim judgment, either the jointly agreed amount of financial compensation resulting from the illegality of the decision of 17 October 2016 or, failing agreement, their submissions on that amount;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission

(Case T-778/17) (1)

(State aid - Toll-motorway concession - Law providing for an exemption from tolls for certain vehicles - Compensation granted to the concession holder by the Member State for loss of revenue - Shadow toll - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Commission’s obligation to exercise particular vigilance - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Improvement of the concessionaire’s expected financial situation - Criterion of the private operator in a market economy - Article 107(3)(a) TFEU - Regional State aid)

(2019/C 432/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: O. Geiss, D. Tayar and T. Siakka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, K. Herrmann and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Rzotkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/556 of 25 August 2017 on the State aid SA.35356 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN, ex 2012/N) implemented by Poland for Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. (OJ 2018 L 92, p. 19).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — ViaSat v Commission

(Case T-245/17) (1)

(Action for failure to act and for annulment - Electronic communications networks and services - Harmonised use of the 2 GHz frequency spectrum - Pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) - Decision 2007/98/EC - Harmonised operator selection procedure - Authorisations granted to the selected operators - Decision No 626/2008/EC - Request for action to be taken - No formal notice - Adoption of a position by the Commission - Inadmissibility - Refusal to take action - Measure not actionable - Inadmissibility - Powers of the Commission)

(2021/C 163/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: E. Righini, J. Ruiz Calzado, P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, L. Nicolae and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, acting as Agent), Eutelsat SA (Paris, France) (represented by: L. de la Brosse and C. Barraco-David, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: EchoStar Mobile Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Robertson, QC), Inmarsat Ventures Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Spontoni, B. Amory, É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, and A. Howard, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take certain measures in the context of the harmonised application of rules concerning the provision of mobile satellite services (MSS) in the 2 GHz frequency band and, in the alternative, under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s letters of 14 and 21 February 2017 by which it responded following the applicant’s request for action to be taken.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ViaSat, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Eutelsat SA, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, EchoStar Mobile Ltd and Inmarsat Ventures Ltd to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

(Case T-414/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Obligation to state reasons - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)

(2020/C 390/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG, formerly Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger and A. Brenneis, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: P. Messina and J. Kerlin, acting as Agents, and B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) in its executive session of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG;

2. orders the SRB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hypo Vorarlberg Bank.

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — EKETA v Commission

(Case T-177/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Ask-it contract concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the Commission for the recovery of amounts advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests - Subcontracting)

(2022/C 95/28)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, T. Adamopoulos and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note No 3241615292 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 211 185,95 of the payment received for a study on a research project called Ask-it is, in the amount of EUR 89 126,11, unfounded, and, second, that the sum in dispute corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Aeris Invest v ECB

(Case T-827/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents related to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies - Document reflecting the outcome of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies - Obligation to state reasons - Exception relating to the protection of the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law - Concept of confidential information - General presumption of confidentiality - Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2021/C 490/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and E. Galán Burgos, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: T. Filipova, D. Báez Seara and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and M. Kottmann, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, J. Rius, C. Ehrbar and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and A. Rodríguez Conde, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the ECB’s decisions LS/MD/17/405, LS/MD/17/406 and LS/MD/17/419, of 7 November 2017, refusing full access to certain documents related to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision LS/MD/17/406 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 7 November 2017 in so far as it refuses access to the outcome of the vote in the Governing Council of the ECB contained in the minutes of the 447th meeting of the Governing Council of the ECB;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the ECB;

4. Orders the ECB to bear one third of its own costs;

5. Orders the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v Commission

(Case T-570/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking Union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Delegation of power - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Right to be heard - Right to property)

(2022/C 294/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Soames, N. Chesaites, lawyers, and R. East, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. King and M. Fernández Rupérez, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, A. Rodríguez Conde, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyers, and G. Cahill, Barrister)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A. (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA.;

3. Orders the Single Resolution Board (SRB) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission

(Case T-344/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Limitation period - Ne bis in idem principle - Principle of non-discrimination - Rights of the defence - State constraint - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Substantially limited participation - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Latam Airlines Group SA (Santiago, Chile), Lan Cargo SA (Santiago) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss and W. Sparks, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Koleva, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz QC)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicants and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(1)(i) and (j),(3)(i) and (j), and (4)(i) and (j) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

2. Annuls Article 1(2)(i) and (j) of that decision in so far as it finds that Latam Airlines Group SA and Lan Cargo SA participated, first, in the elements of the single and continuous infringement relating to the security surcharge and the refusal to pay commission and, second, in the element of the single and continuous infringement relating to the fuel surcharge before 22 July 2005;

3. Annuls Article 3(i) of that decision;

4. Sets the fine imposed jointly and severally on Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo at EUR 2 244 000;

5. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

6. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Inforsacom Logicalis v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)

(Case T-7/18) (1)

(((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Business and technology working as one - Trade mark consisting in an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 93/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Inforsacom Logicalis GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2017 (Case R 808/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Business and technology working as one as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Inforsacom Logicalis GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)

(Case T-59/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FEMIVIA - Earlier EU word mark FEMIBION INTIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 44/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 280/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Merck and Endoceutics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Endoceutics, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Pozza v Parliament

(Case T-216/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Place where main activity is pursued - Inter-institutional transfer - Decision to no longer grant expatriation allowance - Competence - Legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 139/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Geoffray Pozza (Waldbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 8 June 2017 by which the Parliament no longer grants the applicant the expatriation allowance from the date on which he took up his duties.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Mr Geoffray Pozza to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)

(Case T-332/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MARRY ME - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 806/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MARRY ME as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2019 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC)

(Case T-468/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CONDOR SERVICE, NSC - Earlier EU word mark IBERCONDOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 187/83)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NSC Holding GmbH & Cie. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Eichhorst, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ibercondor, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 (Case R 2440/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ibercondor Barcelona SA and NSC Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders NSC Holding GmbH & Cie. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)

(Case T-106/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark VERA GREEN - Earlier EU word mark LAVERA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 148/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented initially by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, then by N. Schmitz and J. Bittner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Agroecopark, SL (Majadahonda, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and C. Serrano Rodríguez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 (Case R 982/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Laverana and Agroecopark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.