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

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino)

(Case T-416/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia), (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2759/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2759/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi;

3. Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — UR v Commission

(Case T-761/17) (1)

((Civil service - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) - Eligibility condition - Required qualification - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Article 27, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations))

(2019/C 93/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UR (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 11 August 2017 of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/322/16, taken following a review, not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders UR to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — France v Commission

(Case T-609/17) (1)

((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by France - Export refunds on poultry meat - Flat-rate financial correction - Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EU) No 1306/2013 - Sound, fair and merchantable quality - Checks - Proportionality))

(2019/C 82/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 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 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it excludes payments made by the French Republic under the EAGF in the amount of EUR 120 901 216,61.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Thun v EUIPO (Fish)

(Case T-604/17) (1)

((Community design - Registered Community design - Failure to apply for renewal - Removal of the design from the register on expiry of registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Cumulative conditions - Duty of due care - Delegation of power - Loss of a right))

(2019/C 103/41)

Langue of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Thun SpA (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: B. Giordano, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 (Case R 1680/2016-3) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Thun SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Lamp)

(Case T-766/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lighting fitting - Ground for invalidity - Earlier Community design - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2019/C 103/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by: H. Lauf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Di-Ka Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG (Arnsberg, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 738/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Eglo Leuchten and Di-Ka Vertriebs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2019 — Prim v EUIPO — Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik (PRIMED)

(Case T-138/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark PRIMED - Earlier national figurative marks PRIM S.A., PRiM, S.A. SUMINISTROS MEDICOS and GRUPO PRiM - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Submission of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Classification as new or additional evidence - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 155/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Prim, SA (Móstoles, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik GmbH (Halberstadt, Germany) (represented by: D. Donath, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2016 (Joined Cases R 2494/2015-4 and R 163/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Prim and Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 December 2016 (Joined Cases R 2494/2015-4 and R 163/2016-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Prim, SA;

4. Orders Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay half of those ińcurred by Prim.

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2019 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)

(Case T-823/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Etnik - Earlier EU trade mark - Relative ground for refusal - Failure to identify the earlier trade mark in the notice of opposition - Principle of sound administration - Right to an effective remedy - Equality of arms - Principle of good faith - Legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 122/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Etnia Dreams, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: P. Gago Comes, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Serge Poisson (Limal, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2017 (Case R 880/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Etnia Dreams and Mr Poisson.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Etnia Dreams SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)

(Case T-223/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

(2019/C 187/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 2522/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Albea Services (ALBÉA)

(Case T-562/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ALBÉA - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Word mark Balea - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 172/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Albea Services (Gennevilliers, France) (represented by: J.-H. de Mitry, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 (Case R 1870/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt and Albea Services.

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 25 May 2017 (Case R 1870/2016-1);

2. Declares that the parties are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB

(Case T-107/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of the Greek public debt - Involvement of the private sector - Collective action clauses - Mandatory exchange of Greek bonds - Private creditors - Opinion of the ECB - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Principle of pacta sunt servanda - Article 17(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 63(1) TFEU - Article 124 TFUE)

(2019/C 230/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Frank Steinhoff (Hamburg, Germany), Ewald Filbry, (Dortmund, Germany), Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG (Gräfenberg, Germany), Werner Bäcker (Rodgau, Germany), EMB Consulting SE (Mühltal, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner and D. Unrau, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: O. Heinz and G. Várhelyi, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking restitution of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants due to the fact that the ECB failed, in its Opinion of 17 February 2012 (CON/2012/12), to draw the attention of the Republic of Greece to the unlawful nature of the proposed restructuring of the Greek public debt by a mandatory exchange of bonds.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Frank Steinhoff, Mr Ewald Filbry, Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG, Mr Werner Bäcker and EMB Consulting SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Scor v Commission

(Case T-135/17) (1)

(State aid - Market for reinsuring the risks of natural disaster - Aid in the form of an unlimited state guarantee granted to the CCR - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination procedure - Article 107(3)(c), TFUE - Action for annulment - Locus standi - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Partial inadmissibility - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Interested party - No serious difficulties)

(2019/C 213/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Scor SE (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Baverez, N. Autet, M. Béas and G. Marson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, A. Bouchagiar and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented initially by D. Colas, B. Fodda, E. de Moustier and J. Bousin, and subsequently by D. Colas, B. Fodda, P. Dodeller, R. Coesme and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents) and Caisse centrale de réassurance (Paris, France) (represented initially by J.-P. Gunther, A. Giraud and S. Petit, and subsequently by A. Giraud and S. Petit, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 5995 final of 26 September 2016, concerning measures SA.37649 and SA.45860 implemented by France, in so far as the Commission declared the unlimited guarantee granted to the CCR for its business of reinsuring the risks of natural disaster to be compatible with the internal market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Scor SE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Caisse centrale de réassurance (CCR), including those incurred in connection with the request for confidential treatment.

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs, including those incurred in connection with the request for confidential treatment.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria

(Case T-588/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211, plus default interest

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 2 184 271,58;

2. Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-540/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement No 20948 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 255/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and by D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement No 20948, plus default interest

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 52 657 141,77;

2. Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, calculated in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Electricity Distribution Project loan agreement No 20948, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 5 February 2001 and amended by the letters of 3 October 2003, 28 February 2006, 9 May and 8 October 2007, from 9 August 2017 up to the date that payment is made;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Transdev and Others v Commission

(Case T-291/17) (1)

(State aid - State aid scheme implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies granted by the Île-de-France Region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 328/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Transdev (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France), Transdev Île de France (Issy-les-Moulineaux), Transports rapides automobiles (TRA) (Villepinte, France) (represented by: F. Salat-Baroux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017, on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application.

2. Orders Transdev, Transdev Île de France and Transports rapides automobiles (TRA) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-474/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Late payments - Overshooting of ceilings - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Double financial correction - Proportionality - Payment deadlines)

(2019/C 295/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes, M, Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, 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) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 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 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing, for the 2011 financial year, expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic for late payments and the overshooting of ceilings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission

(Case T-673/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Concept of economic activity - Services of general economic interest - Non-economic activities - Severability - Selectivity - Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)

(2019/C 406/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgium), Port autonome de Charleroi, (Charleroi, Belgium), Port autonome de Liège (Liège, Belgium), Région wallonne (Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2115 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38393 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by Belgium — Taxation of ports in Belgium (OJ 2017 L 332, p.1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL, Port autonome de Namur, Port autonome de Charleroi, Port autonome de Liège and Région wallonne to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.