ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/43

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — VTZ and Others v Council

(Case T-108/13) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Product concerned))

(2016/C 048/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhsky, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J. F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Byrne and finally by E. McGovern, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. F. Brakeland, B.-R. Killmann and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic); Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH (Paderborn, Germany); Dalmine SpA (Dalmine, Italy); Productos Tubulares, SA (Valle de Trápaga, Spain); Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH (Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Germany); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA (Roman, Romania); Silcotub SA (Zalău, Romania); Tubos Reunidos Industrial, SL (Amurrio, Spain); V & M Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany); V & M France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France); Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France (Aulnoye-Aymeries, France); voestalpine Tubular GmbH & Co. KG (Kindberg, Austria) (represented by: S. Gubel, lawyer, and B. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel, originating, inter alia, in Russia, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2012 L 357, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application in its entirety;

2. Orders Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO), Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO), Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and those of ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Productos Tubulares, SA, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Silcotub SA, Tubos Reunidos Industrial, SL, V & M Deutschland GmbH, V & M France, Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, and voestalpine Tubular GmbH & Co. KG;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/38

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council

(Case T-276/13) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Association - Members not directly concerned - Inadmissibility - Countrywide anti-dumping duty - Individual treatment - Sampling - Rights of the defence - Non-discrimination - Duty of diligence))

(2016/C 270/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Growth Energy (Washington, DC, United States), and Renewable Fuels Association (Washington) (represented initially by P. Vander Schueren, and subsequently by P. Vander Schueren and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by B. Byrne, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, lawyer, and subsequently by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents); and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ 2013 L 49, p. 10), in so far as it affects the applicants and their members.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America in so far as it concerns Patriot Renewable Fuels LLC, Plymouth Energy Company LLC, POET LLC and Platinum Ethanol LLC;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and ePure, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/18

Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Harrys Pubar and Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar and Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR)

(Joined Cases T-711/13 and T-716/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark HARRY’S BAR - Earlier national figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG - Partial refusal of registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 111/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer) (Case T-711/13); and Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer) (Case T-716/13)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Case T-711/13); and Harrys Pubar AB (intervener before the General Court in Case T-716/13)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls, in Case T-711/13, points 1 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 October 2013 (joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA;

2. Dismisses, in Case T-716/13, the action brought by Harry’s New York Bar;

3. Orders Harry’s New York Bar to bear its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court and to pay the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. OHIM is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court.

(1) OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/27

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — ENAC v INEA

(Case T-695/13) (1)

((Financial aid - Projects of common interest in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks - Realisation of a study for the intermodal development of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport - Determination of the final amount of the financial aid - Ineligible costs - Error of law - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 402/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile (ENAC) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Garofoli, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo, D. Silhol and Z. Szilvássy, acting as Agents, and by M. Merola, M. C. Santacroce and L. Armati, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (Grassobbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Muscardini, G. Greco and G. Carullo, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the letters of 18 March and 23 October 2013 of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-TEA), now INEA, relating to certain costs incurred on the occasion of the completion of a feasibility study for the intermodal nature of the Bergame-Orio al Serio airport (Italy) following the financial assistance granted by the European Commission to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile (ENAC, the National civil aviation authority, Italy) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/24

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2016 — Orange Business Belgium v Commission

(Case T-349/13) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of ‘Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations - new generation (TESTA-ng)’ - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract - Transparency - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 305/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Orange Business Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser and T. Villé, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, S. Lejeune and F. Moro, acting as Agents, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 April 2013 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the restricted call for tenders DIGIT/R2/PR/2011/039 ‘Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations — new generation (TESTA-ng)’, and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Orange Business Belgium SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Rogesa v Commission

(Case T-643/13) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Request for access to information relating to the determination of the most efficient 10 % of the steel industry installations - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Concept of information relating to emissions into the environment - Observance of time-limits))

(2018/C 301/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Martenczuk initially, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Krämer, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of the Commission decision dated 25 September 2013 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents which contain information on the basis of assessment used by the Commission to determine the most efficient 10 % of the installations used as a starting point for defining the principles for setting ex ante benchmarks, in accordance with Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/21

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — SNCM v Commission

(Case T-454/13) (1)

((State aid - Maritime cabotage - Aid implemented by France in favor of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for an additional service to the service of Basis to cover peak periods during the tourist season - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Altmark judgment - Determination of the amount of aid))

(2017/C 121/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (Marseille, France) (represented by: initially by A. Winckler, F.-C. Laprévote, J.-P. Mignard and S. Mabile, and subsequently by A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, and finally by F.-C. Laprévote and C. Froitzheim, avocats)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and M. B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Corsica Ferries France SAS (Bastia — France), (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, avocats)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) awarded by France to Société Nationale Corse-Méditerranée and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation (OJ 2013 L 220, p. 20).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Corsica Ferries France SAS.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/23

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Representation of advertising articles)

(Case T-41/14) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an advertising article - Earlier Community designs - Grounds for invalidity - Novelty - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Different overall impression - Articles 4, 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2015/C 089/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd (Ra’anana, Israel) (represented by: B. Brisset, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Clapbanner Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 October 2013 (Case R 981/2012-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd and Clapbanner Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/39

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Bora Creations v OHIM (gel nails at home)

(Case T-140/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark gel nails at home - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Ceuta, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange, G. Hild and E. Schalast, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2013 (Case R 450/2013-1) concerning registration of the word sign gel nails at home as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bora Creations, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/34

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2015 — Swatch v OHIM — Panavision Europe (SWATCHBALL)

(Case T-71/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SWATCHBALL - Community word and figurative marks and international word and figurative marks SWATCH and swatch - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 213/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Panavision Europe Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2013 (Case R 470/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Swatch AG and Panavision Europe Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Swatch AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/30

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — SV Capital v EBA

(Case T-660/14) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Application to initiate an investigation for an alleged breach of EU law - Decision of the EBA - Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities - Finding of the Court of its own motion - Lack of competence of the author of the act - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - Partly inadmissible))

(2015/C 346/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SV Capital OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: M. Greinoman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Banking Authority (EBA) (represented by: J. Overett Somnier and Z. Giotaki, acting as Agents, and by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment, first, of Decision C 2013 002 of the EBA of 21 February 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request for an investigation to be initiated against the Estonian and Finnish financial sector supervisory authorities, pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 12), as a result of an alleged breach of EU law and, secondly, of Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 14 July 2014 dismissing the action brought against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 14 July 2014;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/25

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure with protrusion)

(Case T-396/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a toy figure with protrusion - Absolute grounds for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 262/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (Colne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2014 (Case R 1696/2013-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd and Lego Juris A/S.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/38

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Bankia v OHIM — Banco ActivoBank (Portugal) (Bankia)

(Case T-323/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Bankia - Earlier national word mark BANKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 363/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bankia, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: F. De Barba, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2014 (Joined Cases R 649/2013-2 and R 744/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA, and Bankia, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 February 2014 (Joined Cases R 649/2013-2 and R 744/2013-2) to the extent that it upheld the appeal of Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA, concerning the ‘real estate services’ covered by the Community trade mark application in Class 36;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Bankia, SA, and OHIM to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/33

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on an ivory background)

(Case T-144/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on an ivory background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2014 (Case R 705/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on an ivory background.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.