ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission

(Case T-249/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Plea of illegality against Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Right to an effective remedy - Equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons - Right to inviolability of the home - Sufficiently strong evidence - Proportionality)

(2020/C 414/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Casino, Guichard-Perrachon (Saint-Étienne, France) and Achats Marchandises Casino SAS (AMC), formerly EMC Distribution (Vitry-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: D. Théophile, I. Simic, O. de Juvigny, T. Reymond, A. Sunderland and G. Aubron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, A. Dawes and I. Rogalski, acting as Agents, and by F. Ninane, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, S. Petrova and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1054 (final) of 9 February 2017 ordering Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT. 40466 — Tute 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1054 (final) of 9 February 2017 ordering Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino SAS (AMC), the European Commission and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — ViaSat v Commission

(Case T-649/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document on measures required to ensure compliance by authorised operators of mobile satellite systems with the common conditions referred to in Decision No 626/2008/EC - Implied and express refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Partial refusal of access)

(2020/C 230/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 31 May 2017 for access to the ‘Roadmap of Measures Toward the Compliance of Selected and Authorised Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) Operators with Common Conditions of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008, Including Intermediate New Steps and Corresponding Time Limits’, and, subsequently, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 8219 final of 1 December 2017 refusing access to that roadmap.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that it is no longer necessary to rule on the legality of the European Commission’s implied decision rejecting the confirmatory application for access by ViaSat, Inc. of 31 May 2017 to the ‘Roadmap of Measures Towards the Compliance of Selected and Authorised Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) Operators with Common Conditions of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008, Including Intermediate New Steps and Corresponding Time Limits’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders ViaSat to pay, in addition to three quarters of its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission and by Inmarsat Ventures Ltd;

4. Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to one quarter of its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by ViaSat and by Inmarsat Ventures Ltd.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu

(Case T-271/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the amounts advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2022/C 2/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to repay the advanced payment paid under the Grant Agreement for partners No 632456, plus accrued late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 189 128,26, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 7 February 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;

2. Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS

(Case T-119/17 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Temporary agents - Contract staff - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - Annual assessment of allowance for living conditions - Decision on reduction of the allowance for living conditions for staff posted to Ethiopia from 30 to 25 % - Regional coherence - Manifest errors of assessment)

(2021/C 263/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ruben Alba Aguilera (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) and the 27 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. García Fernández and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Re:

APPICATION under Article 270 TFUE seeking the annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 19 April 2016 ADMIN(2016) 7, fixing the ALC referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations –Financial Year 2016, in so far as that decision reduces, as of 1 January 2016, the allowance for living conditions paid to European Union staff posted in Ethiopia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Director-General for Budget and Administration of the European External Action Service (EEAS) 19 April 2016, fixing the allocation for living conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Financial Year 2016, in so far as it reduces, as of 1 January 2016, the allowance for living conditions paid to European Union staff posted in Ethiopia.

2. Orders the EEAS to pay the costs incurred in Cases T-119/17, C-427/18 P and T-119/17 RENV.

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Air France-KLM v Commission

(Case T-337/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Conditions for granting immunity - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Duration of participation in the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of the anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Air France-KLM (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann, A. de La Cotardière and A.-E. Herrada, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3. Orders Air France-KLM to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Martinair Holland v Commission

(Case T-323/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of air freight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 207/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3. Orders Martinair Holland NV to bear its own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (MULTIFIT)

(Case T-98/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MULTIFIT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 82/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino, D. Walicka, M. Fischer and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 (Case R 846/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MULTIFIT as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2019 — IQ Group Holdings Bhd v EUIPO — Krinner Innovation (Lumiqs)

(Case T-133/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Lumiqs - Earlier EU word and figurative marks Lumix - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 155/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IQ Group Holdings Bhd (Heckmondwike, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Carter, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Krinner Innovation GmbH (Straßkirchen, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 (Case R 983/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Krinner Innovation and IQ Group Holdings Bhd.

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 12 December 2017 (Case R 983/2017-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by IQ Group Holdings Bhd;

3. Orders Krinner Innovation GmbH to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)

(Case T-231/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Djili - Earlier national word mark GILLY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 122/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria) (represented by C.-R. Romițan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by D. Gája and D. Walicka, and subsequently by D. Gája and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2018 (Case R 1902/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Lupu and Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Mauritsch v INEA

(Case T-271/18) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Initial rejection by the applicant of the offer of extension of contract - Resignation - Refusal of entitlement to unemployment benefits - Liability)

(2019/C 213/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Walter Mauritsch (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment, firstly of the decision of the INEA of 24 January 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2017 and, secondly, the decision of the INEA of 2 August 2017 rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation of 10 April 2017, and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Walter Mauritsch to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 (Case R 93/2018-1) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign FLEXLOADER for: — the ‘mechanical tools for the application of humectant, binders, oilers, lubricants or dyes’, within Class 7 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957; and — the ‘electronic data entry and data processing devices, microprocessors, electrical input and output unit, compact discs, floppy disks, magnetic tapes and semiconductors for the storage of technical data’, within Class 9 of the Nice Arrangement.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)

(Case T-12/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Triumph - Earlier EU word mark TRIUMPH - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identical signs - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use - Similarity between products - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (initially represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, subsequently by P. Ruess, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Triumph Designs Ltd (Swadlincote, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 (Case R 665/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Triumph Designs and Zweirad-Center Stadler.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders Triumph Designs Ltd to bear its own costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL)

(Joined Cases T-89/18 and T-90/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the EU word and figurative marks Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL - Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark - Translation - Rights of the defence - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Cases R 1095/2017-4 and R 1096/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2017 (Cases R 1095/2017-4 and R 1096/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH;

2. Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ)

(Case T-357/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of EU figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ - Earlier national figurative mark clínica LALUZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 263/52)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Luz Saúde, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio, P. Guerra e Andrade, M. Barros Silva and G. Moreira Rato, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, I. Ribeiro da Cunha and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Clínica La Luz, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2018 (Case R 2084/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Clínica La Luz and Luz Saúde.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Luz Saúde, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles)

(Case T-209/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a motor vehicle - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2019/C 255/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 (Case R 945/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Autec AG and Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Alfamicro v Commission

(Case T-64/18) (1)

(Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Enforcement decision - Recovery of a debt arising out of a grant agreement - Article 299 TFEU - Regulation (EU, Euratom) no 966/2012 - Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012 - Extrapolation of the audit findings - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 295/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 8839 final of 13 December 2017 concerning the recovery of a debt from the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.