ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — Montanari v EEAS

(Case T-692/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Ad hoc inspection report - Refusal of access - Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Article 8(b) of Regulation No 45/2001 - Transfer of personal data - Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 36/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marco Montanari (Reggio Emilia, Italy) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spac and E. Orgován, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of EEAS of 24 October 2018 by which EEAS refused to grant the applicant access to the report of 29 July 2017 drawn up by A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 24 October 2018 by which the European External Action Service (EEAS) rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents made by Mr Marco Montanari on 13 September 2018;

2. Orders EEAS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 7 June 2018 refusing, partially or totally, to grant Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA, access to documents relating to the Commission’s opinion sent to the French Republic concerning the fact that the metro lines contract is valid until 2039, in so far as it refused in part to grant access to the data other than personal data contained in the letter of 25 October 2010 sent by the Commission to the French authorities and in the letters of 27 July 2012 and 5 June 2013 sent by the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Kallas, to the RATP;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-292/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Article 54 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Definition of national courts)

(2020/C 77/61)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Estêvão, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Barros da Costa, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rechena and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/304 of 27 February 2018 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 2018 L 59, p. 3), in that it excludes from EU financing an amount of EUR 1 052 101,05 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE)

(Case T-688/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark CORNEREYE - Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use - Evidence - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 137/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Pansch, S. Klopschinski and M. von Rospatt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brigade Electronics Group plc (Kent, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hicks, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Brigade Electronics Group and Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV, including the costs necessarily incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

3. Orders Brigade Electronics Group plc to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 21.1.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council

(Case T-165/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Renewal of the listing of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Obligation for the Council to communicate the new elements justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to respect for private and family life - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Plea of illegality)

(2020/C 103/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Delphin Kahimbi Kasagwe (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 328, p. 19), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Delphin Kahimbi Kasagwe to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-446/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 215/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 1589/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11)

(Case T-653/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GIORGIO ARMANI le sac 11 - Earlier national word mark LESAC and earlier national figurative marks lesac - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 209/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Felipe Domingo Asunción (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 (Case R 2462/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Asunción and Giorgio Armani.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Giorgio Armani SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB

(Case T-577/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Administrative pecuniary penalty imposed by the ECB on a credit institution - First subparagraph of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Continued breach of capital requirements - Negligent breach - Rights of defence - Amount of the penalty - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 313/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 of the ECB of 16 July 2018, taken pursuant to Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63) and imposing on the applicant an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 300 000 for continued breach of the capital requirements laid down in Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68, and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018 in so far as it imposes on Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 300 000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the ECB to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Darment v Commission

(Case T-739/18) (1)

(Environment - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision finding that an undertaking exceeded the quota allocated to it and imposing on it a penalty - Correction of the electronic registry for quotas - Transfer of quota - Authorisation to use a quota - Principle of good administration)

(2020/C 230/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, A.C. Becker and M. Jauregui Gomez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that the applicant exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the European Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that Darment Oy exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — GVN v Commission

(Case T-583/18) (1)

(State aid - Public transport of passengers - Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Obligation to establish maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility - Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) - Decision not to raise objections - Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Transfer of financial resources from a Land to transport authorities at municipal level - Concept of aid)

(2020/C 433/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen e.V. (GVN) (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: C. Antweiler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs and S. Heimerl, acting as Agents) and Land Niedersachsen (Germany) (represented by: S. Barth and H. Gading, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 not to raise objections to the measure adopted by the Land Niedersachsen under Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz [Case SA.46538 (2017/NN)] (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen e.V. (GVN) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Niedersachsen to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — ZL v EUIPO

(Case T-596/18) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Rejection of the request for access to the multiple-choice questions asked in the admission tests - Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings)

(2020/C 390/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZL (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of 7 March 2018 of the selection board for competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — Administrators (AD 6) in the field of intellectual property rejecting the applicant’s request for review of that selection board’s decision of 1 December 2017 not to place her name on the reserve list drawn up with a view to the recruitment of administrators by EUIPO and, secondly, of EUIPO’s decision of 27 June 2018 rejecting her complaints.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ZL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
1.

Annuls Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2017) 8230 final, adopted on 8 December 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT/40208 — International Skating Unions’s eligibility rules), in so far as, by requiring the International Skating Union to put an end to the infringement established which is subject to a periodic penalty payment, the Commission refers to the arbitration rules and requires that they be amended in the event that the pre-authorisation system is maintained;
Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Deza v Commission

(Case T-638/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Environment - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2021/C 44/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, S. Saez Moreno and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, R. Lindenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as that regulation classified pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products and Others v Commission

(Case T-254/18) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain cast iron articles originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Association - Standing to bring proceedings - Interest in bringing proceedings - Injury determination - Calculation of the import volume - Macroeconomic and microeconomic indicators - Sampling - Calculation of the EU industry’s cost of production - Prices charged intra-group - Causal link - Attribution and non-attribution analysis - No assessment of injury by segment - Assessment of the significance of undercutting - Confidential treatment of information - Rights of the defence - PCN-by-PCN methodology - Product comparability - Calculation of the normal value - Analogue country - Adjustment for VAT - Determination of the selling, general and administrative costs and profit)

(2021/C 263/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (Beijing, China), and the nine other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: EJ Picardie (Saint-Crépin-Ibouvillers, France), and the seven other interveners whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: U. O’Dwyer, B. O’Connor, Solicitors, and M. Hommé, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in India (OJ 2018 L 25, p. 6), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — XC v Commission

(Case T-488/18) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 - Decision of the selection board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability - Access to documents - Refusal of access to the questions asked during a test - Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings - Regulation (EU) No 1049/2001 - Open competition EPSO/AD/356/18 - Reserve list - Action for annulment - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Liability)

(2021/C 128/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: XC (represented by: C. Bottino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina and L. Vernier, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 of 4 December 2017 to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition, second application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 3969 of 19 June 2018 on access to documents, third, application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18, published on 22 May 2019, and, fourth, application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking compensation for various losses allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders XC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.