ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/33

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2017 — Red Bull v EUIPO — Optimum Mark (Combination of the colours blue and silver)

(Joined Cases T-101/15 and T-102/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours blue and silver - Absolute ground for refusal - Graphic representation that is sufficiently clear and precise - Need for a systematic arrangement associating the colours in a predetermined and uniform way - Legitimate expectations - Article 4 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 4 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 022/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Marques (Leicester, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially R. Mallinson and F. Delord, Solicitors, and subsequently R. Mallinson, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Optimum Mark sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, M. Mazurek, J. Dudzik and E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska, lawyers)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2014 (Case R 2037/2013-1 and Case R 2036/2013-1, respectively), relating to invalidity proceedings between Optimum Mark and Red Bull.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Red Bull GmbH to pay the costs, including those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Optimum Mark sp. z o.o.;

3. Orders Marques to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/26

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2017 — Frame v EUIPO — Bianca-Moden (BiancalunA)

(Case T-628/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BiancalunA — Rejection - Earlier national figurative mark bianca - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2017/C 437/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, M. Borghese and R. Giordano, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2720/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bianca-Moden and Frame.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2720/2014-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Frame Srl;

3. Orders Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/26

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Pari Pharma v EMA

(Case T-235/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - No general presumption of confidentiality))

(2018/C 104/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pari Pharma GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Epping and W. Rehmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, A. Rusanov, S. Marino, A. Spina and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Traband, acting as Agents) and Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision EMA/271043/2015 of the EMA of 24 April 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pari Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), including those relating to the application for interim measures;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs;

4. Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/32

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — EDF v Commission

(Case T-747/15) (1)

((State aid - Aid granted by the French authorities to EDF - Reclassification as a capital contribution of accounting provisions created free of tax for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Force of res judicata - Private investor test))

(2018/C 072/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Électricité de France (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/154 of 22 July 2015 on State aid SA.13869 (C 68/2002) (ex NN 80/2002) — reclassification as capital of the tax-exempt accounting provisions for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network implemented by France in favour of EDF (OJ 2016, L 34, p. 152).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Électricité de France (EDF) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the latter as a result of the intervention of the French Republic;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission as a result of its intervention.

(1) OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
Case T-537/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — Verbis Alfa and EasyPack (InPost) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark InPost — Earlier EU figurative marks INFOPOST and ePOST and earlier national word mark POST — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No detriment to reputation and no dilution — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — Verbis Alfa and EasyPack (InPost)

(Case T-537/15) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark InPost — Earlier EU figurative marks INFOPOST and ePOST and earlier national word mark POST — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No detriment to reputation and no dilution — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)’

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented initially by: M. Viefhues and T. Heitmann, and subsequently by M. Viefhues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Verbis Alfa sp. z o.o. (Cracow, Poland) and EasyPack sp. z o.o. (Cracow) (represented by: M. Żabińska, A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2015 (Case R 546/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post, on the one hand, and Verbis Alfa and EasyPack, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/23

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2018 — Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v Commission

(Case T-462/15) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EU) 2015/776 - Circumvention - Transhipment - Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036)))

(2018/C 190/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asia Leader International (Cambodia) Co. Ltd (Tai Seng SEZ, Cambodia) (represented by: A. Bochon, lawyer, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Article 1(1) and (3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not (OJ 2015 L 122, p. 4), to the extent that it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Asia Leader International (Cambodia) Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-111/15) (1)

((State aid - Agreements between the Syndicat mixte des aéroports de Charente and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))

(2019/C 82/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1226 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33963 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Angoulême Chamber of Commerce and Industry, SNC-Lavalin, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 48).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — KF v SatCen

(Case T-286/15) (1)

(Actions for annulment and for compensation - SatCen staff - Members of the contract staff - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature - Common foreign and security policy - Article 24 TEU - Articles 263, 268, 270 and 275 TFEU - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Equal treatment - Decisions 2014/401/CFSP and 2009/747/CFSP - SatCen’s Appeals Board - Plea of illegality - Request for assistance - Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out - Suspension - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal - Principle of sound administration - Requirement of impartiality - Right to be heard - Access to the file - Non-contractual liability - Premature claim for damages - Non-material damage)

(2019/C 4/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by: A. Kunst, lawyer, and N. Macaulay, Barrister)

Defendant: The European Union Satellite Centre (represented by: L. Defalque and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decisions of the Director of SatCen of 5 July 2013 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, to suspend the applicant and to reject her request for assistance and of 28 February 2014 to remove the applicant, and the decision of SatCen’s Appeals Board of 26 January 2015 confirming those decisions and, second, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Appeals Board of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) of 26 January 2015;

2. Annuls the decision of the Director of SatCen of 5 July 2013 suspending KF;

3. Annuls the decision of the Director of SatCen of 28 February 2014 removing KF;

4. Orders SatCen to pay KF the sum of EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non-material harm sustained by her;

5. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

6. Orders SatCen to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by KF;

7. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Ja zum Nürburgring v Commission

(Case T-373/15) (1)

(State aid - Individual aid in favour of the Nürburgring complex for the construction of a leisure park, hotels and restaurants as well as for the organisation of motor races - Decision finding the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Decision finding that the reimbursement of the aid found to be incompatible does not concern the new owner of the Nürburgring complex - Action for annulment - No substantial effect on competitive position - Association - Status of negotiator - Inadmissibility - Decision finding no State aid after the preliminary examination stage - Action for annulment - Interested party - Legal interest in bringing an action - Admissibility - Breach of procedural rights of interested parties - No difficulties that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure - Complaint - Sale of the assets of the beneficiaries of the State aid found to be incompatible - Open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender process - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration)

(2019/C 288/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ja zum Nürburgring eV (Nürburg, Germany) (represented initially by D. Frey, M. Rudolph and S. Eggerath, and subsequently by D. Frey and M. Rudolph, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders that the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action be dismissed;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Ja zum Nürburgring eV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — France v Commission

(Case T-156/15) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by France - Area-related aid scheme - Procedural safeguards - Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ - Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 - National control system based on a definition of forage areas which is not consistent with EU law - Exclusion of all the expenditure - Proportionality - Metropolitan France’s rural development programme - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Flat-rate financial correction - On-the-spot checks - Loading criterion - Counting of animals - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry - Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 - Conditions for the grant of restructuring aid - Concept of ‘production facilities’ - Assessment of the use of silos on the date of submission of the aid application - Concept of‘full dismantling’ - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Annex 2 to document VI/5330/97)

(2019/C 148/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially, F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, subsequently, G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and A. Daly and, finally, D. Colas, S. Horrenberger, R. Coesme, E. de Moustier and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Triantafyllou, acting as agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato) and Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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 2015 L 16, p. 33).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing all the expenditure incurred by the French Republic in Upper Corsica in respect of first pillar area-related direct aid relating to the 2010 and 2011 claim years;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs;

4. Orders the Italian Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — HTTS v Council

(Case T-692/15 RENV) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2021/C 338/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot, C. Hödlmayr, J. Roberti di Sarsina and M. Kellerbauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Articles 268 and 340 TFEU and seeking compensation for the losses which the applicant allegedly suffered following the listing of its name, first, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25) in Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1) and, secondly, by Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union relating to the present proceedings and the proceedings in Case T-692/15;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings in Case C-123/18 P.

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings, the proceedings in Case T-692/15 and the proceedings in Case C-123/18 P.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case T-522/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Attributability of unlawful conduct - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Ceiling of the fine - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Ability to pay)

(2019/C 328/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox group SpA (Reggio Emilia), Poliemme Srl (Reggio Emilia), Coopbox Hispania, SL (Lorca, Spain), Coopbox Eastern s. r. o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Bariatti and E. Cucchiara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Jimeno Fernández, A. Biolan and P. Rossi, and subsequently by F. Jimeno Fernandez, P. Rossi and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, principally, the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging) and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2(1)(f) and (g), Article 2(d) and (e) and Article 2(4)(c) and (d) of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging);

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.