ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 December 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FREE STYLE)

(Case T‑213/16)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FREE STYLE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, 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—Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 18)

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—Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 19)

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—Word mark FREE STYLE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c) and (2)) (see paras 21, 22, 25-46)

5. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO—Examination by the Board of Appeal—Scope—Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose—Account taken—Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2)) (see paras 50-52)

6. 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 (see paras 59, 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 (Case R 378/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elho Business & Sport and El Corte Inglés.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 27 February 2018 — Zink v Commission

(Case T‑338/16 P)

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — No payment of the allowance for a number of years following an administrative error — Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable period of time)

Actions brought by officials—Request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulation—Request for compensation addressed to an institution—Duty to act within a reasonable time—Criteria for assessment

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(1))

(see paras 29-31)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016, Zink v Commission (F‑77/15, EU:F:2016:74), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016, Zink v Commission (F 77/15);

2. Annuls the decision of 23 July 2014 of the Office for ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of the European Commission to the extent that, pursuant to that decision, the Commission had refused to pay Mr Richard Zink the expatriation allowance relating to the period between 1 September 2007 and 30 April 2009;

3. Dismisses, as to the remainder, the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal, registered as Case F 77/15;
Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—Abstract statement—Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 86, 87)
Officials—Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities—Temporary staff—Member of the auxiliary staff—Difference—Whether the employment is of a permanent nature—Precarious nature of contracts for the employment of auxiliary staff

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 2 and 3)

(see paras 30-32)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 March 2018 –

Šroubárna Ždánice v Council

(Case T‑442/16)

(Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties – Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China or consigned from Malaysia – Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 – Jurisdiction of the national court – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court)

Actions for damages–Subject-matter–Claim for repayment of anti-dumping duties paid when not owed–Jurisdiction of the national courts

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 243 to 246)

(see paras 32-41)

Re:

Application for repayment of the anti-dumping duties, with interest, that the applicant claims to have wrongfully paid to the customs authorities of the Czech Republic following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation No 91/2007 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation No 91/2009 (OJ 2012 L 275, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action on the ground of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;

2. Orders Šroubárna Ždánice a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;
Case T‑461/16

Khaled Kaddour

v

Council of the European Union

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Misuse of powers — Principle of sound administration — Principle of the force of res judicata — Infringement of Article 266 TFEU — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights — Proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber), 31 May 2018

Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Meaning EU law — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41) Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Absolute authority of res judicata — Scope — Account taken of both the reasoning and the operative part — Obligation to implement — Decision not necessarily having to be on the same grounds as those appearing in the annulled measure (Art. 266 TFEU) European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Syria — Ambit of the review (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850; Council Regulation No 2016/840) Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Annulment action by a person benefiting from the policies of the Syrian regime covered by a fund-freezing decision — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded — Decision based on a series of indicators — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850; Council Regulation No 2016/840) Judicial proceedings — Burden of proof, etc. — Documentary evidence — Testimony — Probative value — Assessment by the EU judicature — Criteria Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Infringement of the rights to property and reputation — Breach of principle of proportionality — Infringement of principle of non-discrimination — None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 17; Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850; Council Regulation No 2016/840) EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Meaning
Notwithstanding the interpretation of Rule 50 of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark, the broad discretion enjoyed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the performance of its duties cannot exempt it from its duty to assemble all the elements of fact and law necessary for the exercise of its discretion in cases where the refusal to take account of certain evidence submitted late would breach the principle of sound administration.

In that regard, in the context of invalidity proceedings, where the Board of Appeal refuses to take into consideration evidence of the reputation of the earlier mark, within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, which is produced out of time but which may modify the substance of the contested decision, it makes a procedural error in breach of the principle of sound administration.

In the light of the requirement imposed on EUIPO to take into account decisions already taken and to consider with particular care whether it should decide in the same way or not, the earlier decision of the Board of Appeal, in which it was acknowledged that the earlier mark had acquired substantial reputation throughout the European Union, was clearly an indication that that mark might have a reputation within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. By refusing to examine such evidence on the ground that it was submitted out of time, the Board of Appeal failed to examine a potentially relevant factor in the application of that provision. Therefore, the Board of Appeal should, in accordance with its duty of sound administration, have accepted the evidence of the earlier mark’s reputation submitted for the first time before it, if only to refute that evidence.

(see paras 65-68, 77, 79)
EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Examination of the application—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Recital 10 and Art. 57(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3))

(see para. 70)
Judicial proceedings–Application initiating proceedings–Formal requirements–Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 28, 29)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2018 –

PS v EIB

(Case T‑612/16)

(Civil service — EIB staff — Social security — Accident at work — Total and permanent invalidity — Occupational origin of the disease — System for the insurance of accidents at work and occupational diseases — Contributions to the pension scheme — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Liability — Non-material harm)

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Subject-matter of the dispute — Delimitation — Alteration once proceedings have been started — Prohibition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76 and 84(1) and (2)) (see para. 38)

2. Officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Invalidity — Separate schemes — Recognition of the occupational origin of a disease by the European Investment Bank’s pension scheme — Obligation on the medical officer of the insurance company AXA to recognise that same origin — None (Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 33a) (see paras 46, 51-53)

3. Procedure — Measures of inquiry — Hearing of witnesses — Discretion of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 93 and 94) (see paras 63, 64)

4. Judicial proceedings — Examination of the substance before examination of admissibility — Lawfulness (see para. 74)

5. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Injury — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of those conditions not met — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 83, 84)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant since November 2013.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
A provision of secondary European Union law should as far as possible be given the interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the Treaty and the general principles of EU law. However, as shown by the use of the expression ‘as far as possible’, such an interpretation cannot be applied in the case of a provision whose meaning is clear and unambiguous and which therefore requires no interpretation. In the case of a provision whose meaning is clear and unambiguous, it is for the Court alone, where a plea of illegality within the meaning of Article 277 TFEU is raised, to review its consistency with the provisions of the Treaty and the general provisions of EU law.

Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, as amended by Regulation No 2015/62, must be interpreted as conferring on the competent authorities a discretion to refuse to grant the derogation which it establishes even when the conditions set out in that provision are met.

By that derogation, the Commission, with the prior authorisation of the legislature, envisaged the possibility that a credit institution’s exposures to public-sector entities which, because of a State guarantee, present the same low risk level as exposures to that State and which do not correspond to an investment choice by the credit institution — in that the credit institution is under an obligation to transfer the sums concerned — are not relevant for the calculation of the leverage ratio and may therefore be excluded. The only exposures affected by Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013 are those which, in application of the standard approach to the calculation of minimum own funds requirements, would be assigned a risk weight of 0%.

Consequently, the implementation of Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013 entails the reconciliation of two objectives: first, compliance with the logic of the leverage ratio, which requires that the calculation of that ratio include the overall exposure measure of a credit institution, without weighting by reference to the risk, and, second, consideration of the objective of the Commission, authorised in advance by the legislature, that, if necessary, certain exposures with a particularly low risk profile which are not the result of an investment choice made by the credit institutions are not relevant for the calculation of the leverage ratio and may therefore be excluded. It must be stated that the recognition in favour of the competent authorities of a discretion when they implement Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013 allows them to decide between those two objectives in the light of the particular characteristics of each individual case.

(see paras 52-56)
Officials — Organisation of departments — Assignment of staff — Reassignment in the interest of the service — Right of the person concerned to be heard — Absence

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 7(1))

(see paras 113, 114)
Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Pleas in law — Infringement of the principle of sound administration — Invalid plea in law — Rejection — Limits — Compliance with the principle of the performance of contracts in good faith

(Art. 272 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1))

(see paras 123-127)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2019 –

HJ v EMA

(Case T‑881/16)

(Civil service — Temporary agents — Partial inadmissibility — Application for an injunction — Access of officials to their personal file — Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Personal file made accessible to all members of staff of the EMA — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies — Liability — Non-material harm)

1. Actions for damages — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Unlimited jurisdiction — Direction issued to an institution to pay compensation for the damage alleged — Not permissible (Arts 268 and 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 26)

2. European Union — Institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Rule of a general nature — Request by an official for access to his personal and medical files — Subject to the Staff Regulations of Officials (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 26, seventh and eighth paras, and 26a; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 42-45)

3. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Concept — Application in proceedings concerning the Staff Regulations — Criteria (Art. 270 TFEU) (see paras 50-54)

4. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Damage — Non-material damage sustained as a result of the disclosure of personal data — Burden of proof (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 55-57)

5. Actions brought by officials — Actions for damages — Annulment of the illegal act in dispute — Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 60)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, compensation in respect of the non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered following the disclosure of his personal file to all members of staff of the EMA and, secondly, the withdrawal of two documents from that file.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to pay HJ the symbolic sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 February 2019 –

Athletic Club v Commission

(Case T‑679/16)

(State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs — Preferential tax rate on the income of the clubs authorised to operate as non-profit organisations — Decision declaring that the aid is incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Infra-State measure — Selective nature — Distortion of competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Alteration to existing aid — Duty to state reasons)

1. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Commission decision ordering the recovery of unlawful aid found to be incompatible with the internal market — Intention of national authorities not to recover de minimis aid — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 18-23)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid (Arts 107(1) and 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c)) (see paras 28-30)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for submissions made in support of a plea — Imprecise formulation of a claim — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(1)(c)) (see paras 38-40)

4. State aid — Concept — Special tax regime conferring an advantage on an undertaking — Exact amount of aid which can only be determined by reference to certain factors unrelated to that regime — Irrelevant (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see para. 53)

5. State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Measure conferring a tax advantage — Appropriate criterion for establishing the selectivity of the measure — Introduction between operators that are in a comparable factual and legal situation of a distinction that is not justified by the nature and general structure of a general tax system (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 59, 64-67, 70)

6. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Aid of little importance in a sector with lively competition — National professional sport sector (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 76-82)

7. State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Concept — Legislative amendments affecting an aid scheme — Treated as new aid — Conditions (Art. 108(1) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Art. 1(c); Commission Regulation No 794/2004, Art. 4(2)) (see paras 94-96)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Articles 1, 4 and 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2391 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs (OJ 2016 L 357, p.1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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, Art. 1d(1) and (6), Arts 27 and 28(f), and Annex III, Art. 1(1)(f); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 1)

(see paras 61-65, 69-72, 94, 95)
Judicial proceedings – Intervention – Claim of inadmissibility of the action not maintained by the defendant – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, fourth para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 142)

(see paras 41-43)