ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2018 — Villeneuve v Commission

(Case T-671/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Recruitment - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/303/15 (AD 7) - Verification by EPSO of the conditions for admission to the competition - Professional experience of a period shorter than the minimum period required - Nature of the check of the condition for admission relating to professional experience - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment by the selection board of the competition - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 373/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vincent Villeneuve (Montpellier, France) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of 5 November 2015 of the selection board rejecting the applicant’s application for open competition, based on qualifications and tests, EPSO/AD/303/15 — Development cooperation and management of aid to non-EU countries (AD 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Vincent Villeneuve to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BPCE v ECB

(Case T-745/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 328/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BPCE (Paris, France) (represented by: initially A. Gosset Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, then A. Gosset-Grainville, P. Kupka and M. Trabucchi and finally A. Gosset-Grainville and M. Trabucchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/195 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) 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/2016 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/195 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016;

2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-463/16) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aids - Reductions and exclusions for failure to comply with the rules on cross compliance - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Proportionality)

(2018/C 427/54)

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: A. Sauka, acting as Agent, M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 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 2016 L 173, p. 59) insofar as it relates to 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 to pay three quarters of those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — GABO:mi v Commission

(Case T-10/16) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) - Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the grants awarded - Debit note - Setting off of claims - Amendment of application - Admissibility - Eligibility of expenses - Funds held in trust - Duty to record costs in contractor’s accounts - Compliance with accounting rules in the State in which the contractor is established - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Good governance - Transparency - Right to be heard - Proportionality))

(2018/C 408/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Delaude, S. Lejeune and M. Siekierzyńska, subsequently by S. Delaude and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that a claim mentioned in two information letters dated 2 December 2015 and in a debit note dated 2 December 2015 relating to a claim of EUR 1 770 417,29 does not exist and, second, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of set-off decisions contained in seven letters dated 16 and 21 December 2015, 14 January, 26 April and 3 May 2016 seeking to offset each payment concerned against the applicant’s alleged debt and of that debit note and those information letters.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares unfounded the claim of the European Commission against GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG mentioned in debit note No 3241514917 dated 2 December 2015 and in the two information letters dated 2 December 2015 so far as concerns the declared expenses relating to the ‘central travel/meeting budget’ and the liquidated damages relating to it;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission

(Case T-724/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Transfer of national pension rights - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of the European Union to provide assistance - Loss of interest of the applicants in bringing proceedings during the course of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate at first instance - Causation))

(2019/C 16/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (F-134/11, EU:F:2016:194), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (F-134/11) inasmuch as the European Union Civil Service Tribunal held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for damages submitted by Mr Giorgio Cocchi and Ms Nicola Falcione at first instance;

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Dismisses the claims for damages submitted by Mr Cocchi and Ms Falcione in their actions at first instance under case number F-134/11;

4. Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance so far as the claims for damages are concerned.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — GEA Group v Commission

(Case T-640/16) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Heat stabilisers - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC - Decision amending the initial decision - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Fines - 10 % ceiling - Group of companies - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 436/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Biolan and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3920 final of 29 June 2016 amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 3920 final of 29 June 2016 amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers);

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (V)

(Case T-848/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark V - Earlier international figurative marks V - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier trade mark - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)))

(2019/C 72/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 (Case R 2129/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deichmann and Vans.

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 September 2016 (Case R 2129/2015-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Deichmann SE;

3. Orders Vans, Inc. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Schneider v EUIPO

(Case T-560/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Internal reorganisation of EUIPO’s services - Redeployment - Legal basis - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations - Interests of the service - Significant change in tasks - Equivalence of posts - Covert penalty - Misuse of powers - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 44/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gregor Schneider (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EUIPO of 2 October 2014 to redeploy the applicant from the International Cooperation and Legal Affairs Department to the Operations Department of EUIPO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Gregor Schneider to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) C 328, 5.10.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under case number F-116/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — East West Consulting v Commission

(Case T-298/16) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance - Third country - National public procurement - Devolved management - Decision 2008/969/EC, Euratom - Early Warning System (EWS) - Activation of a warning in the EWS - Protection of the financial interests of the European Union - Commission’s refusal to give ex ante approval - Contract not awarded - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Admissibility of evidence - No legal basis for the warning - Rights of defence - Presumption of innocence - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link - Material and non-material damage - Loss of the contract - Loss of the opportunity to be awarded other contracts))

(2019/C 93/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: East West Consulting SPRL (Nandrin, Belgium) (represented by: initially L. Levi and A. Tymen, and subsequently L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of a warning being activated against it in the Early Warning System (EWS) and the subsequent refusal, on the basis of that warning, to endorse the contract awarded, following a public procurement procedure, to the consortium which it led and which was to be financed by the European Union in the context of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European Commission to pay to East West Consulting SPRL the sum of EUR 20 000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 –Wahlström v Frontex

(Case T-591/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Frontex - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Article 8 of the CEOS - Duty of care - Use of an annulled appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Costs - Equity - Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure))

(2019/C 82/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo (Finland)) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 26 June 2015 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff of Frontex and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the loss of salary consequent thereon and the loss of corresponding pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-21/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2019 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission

(Case T-310/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Article 11(4) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 11(4) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Refusal to grant new exporting producer treatment in accordance with Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Sampling - Individual examination - Confidentiality)

(2019/C 155/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd (Foshan, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit, D. Philippe and A. Wese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Demeneix, M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, and subsequently by A. Demeneix, T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Cerame-Unie AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Akritidis, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, for the annulment of the Commission’s Implementing Decision C(2016) 2136 final of 15 April 2016 rejecting a request for a new exporting producer treatment with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Cerame-Unie AISBL to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — RE v Commission

(Case T-903/16) (1)

(Personal data - Protection of natural persons with respect to the processing of their data - Right of access to those data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Actions for annulment - Email referring to an earlier partial refusal of access without carrying out a re-examination - Concept of a challengeable act within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU - Concept of a purely confirmatory act - Applicability to access to personal data - Substantial new facts - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 131/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RE (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the note of the Director of the Security Directorate of the Directorate-General for Human Resources of the Commission of 12 October 2016 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s request for access to some of his personal data.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the note of 12 October 2016 of the director of the Security Directorate of the Directorate-General for Human Resources of the Commission, in so far as it rejects the request of 21 September 2016 of RE for access to some of his personal data;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — Frank v Commission

(Case T-478/16) (1)

(Research and technological development - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme for the year 2016 - ERCEA decision rejecting a grant application as ineligible - Administrative appeal before the Commission - Implied rejection decision - Inadmissible in part - Express rejection decision - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 263/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: S. Conrad, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, L. Mantl and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision of 17 June 2016 and, secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 16 September 2016, which respectively rejected, implicitly and explicitly, the applicant’s administrative appeal pursuant to Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — QH v Parliament

(Case T-748/16) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Principles of objectivity and impartiality - Right to good administration - Right to be heard)

(2019/C 213/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: QH (represented initially by N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, and subsequently by N. Lhoëst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 January 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant on 11 December 2014 and the decision of 12 July 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment rejected the applicant’s claim and, secondly, compensation for the loss he allegedly suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of that authority when processing that request for assistance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the European Parliament’s decision of 26 January 2016 rejecting his request for assistance, as confirmed by the decision of 12 July 2016 rejecting his claim;

2. Dismisses the claim as to the remainder;

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

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO)

(Case T-182/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER DUO - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 305/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2916/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.