ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2020 –

GVN v Commission

(Case T‑583/18)

(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)

1. Transport – Aid for transport – Regulation No 1370/2007 – Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations incurred by passenger transport undertakings – Member States entitled to exclude from the scope of the regulation compensation relating to the maximum tariffs for the transport of pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility – Decision of the Member State to bring that compensation back within the scope of the regulation – Whether permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1370/2007, Art. 3(3)) (see paras 36-44)

2. State aid – Meaning – Grant of an advantage to the beneficiaries – Financial transfer between various levels of public administration for the purpose of allocating resources between public authorities – No advantage granted to an undertaking (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 53-55, 60)

3. Competition – EU rules – Addressees – Undertakings – Definition – Exercise of an economic activity – Entity engaged in both economic and non-economic activities – Entity that cannot be classified as an undertaking except as regards its economic activities (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 56-60)

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

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;
Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 575/2013, Arts 26(1), first subpara., (a) to (f) and 36; Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Art. 4(1)(f))

(see paras 45-50)
Competition – Division of jurisdiction between the Commission and national competition authorities – Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities – Undertakings entitled to have their cases dealt with by a given competition authority – None

(Arts 101 and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Recital 18 and Arts 4, 5 and 13(1); Commission Notice 2004/C 101/03)

(see paras 104-109, 116, 119)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 December 2020 –

Adraces v Commission

(Case T‑714/18)

(Arbitration clause – Framework partnership agreement – Local Europe Direct information centre – Termination of the contract without specifying the ground – Legal certainty – Principle of good faith – Proportionality – Observance of the contracting party’s rights and legitimate interests – Right to sound administration)

Judicial proceedings – General Court seised under an arbitration clause – Contract concluded under a work programme in the field of communication – Unilateral termination of the contract without specifying the ground – No infringement of the principle of legal certainty – No infringement of the principles of good faith and proportionality – No infringement of the principle pacta sunt servanda – No infringement of the principle of sound administration – Dismissal of the action

(Art. 5(4) TEU; Art. 272 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41)

(see paras 37-45, 49, 50, 53, 64-70, 83, 87-91)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking, first, a declaration that the ‘termination’ by the Commission of framework partnership agreement COMM/LIS/ED/2018-2020_1 is null and void and, second, an order that the Commission restore the applicant to its position prior to that ‘termination’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned are well founded

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2018/901 and (CFSP) 2018/1656, Annex I; Council Regulations No 2017/2063, Annex IV, No 2018/899 and No 2018/1653)

(see paras 51-54)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2021 –

WM v Commission

(Case T‑411/18)

(Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Notice of competition – Open Competition EPSO/AD/338/17 – Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition – Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 1d(1), (4) and (5) of the Staff Regulations – Reasonable accommodation – Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability – Directive 2000/78/EC – Liability – Material and non-material harm)

1. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision not to admit a candidate to the tests in a competition – Possibility of relying on the unlawfulness or scope of the organisation of the competition – Conditions (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 38)

2. Officials – Competitions – European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) – Powers – Organisation of competitions – Scope – Modification of the competition procedures decided by the selection board to take account of the possible disability of certain candidates – Included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Arts 1, first para., and 4) (see para. 39)

3. Officials – Equal treatment and non-discrimination – Disability – Obligation to provide for reasonable working arrangements – Scope – Judicial review – Limits – Calling into question of medical assessments – Precluded (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 1d(4); Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 5) (see paras 42-44, 65, 77)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Selection Board of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 of 27 September 2017 to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition as well as the decision of the Appointing Authority of 19 April 2018 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
36

Article 12(4)(c) of Regulation No 854/2004 therefore empowers the Commission to adopt an implementing act pursuant to which the lists drawn up by the competent authorities of third countries are modified. It is apparent from paragraph 29 above that the modification of such a list may prove necessary where the competent authority of the third country of origin can no longer be regarded as providing the guarantees described in Article 12(2) of that regulation in respect of certain establishments. In that regard, as the applicants moreover argue under the third plea (see paragraph 97 below), Article 12(4) of that regulation does not provide for an evaluation by the Commission of the individual conduct of the establishments as such, but only an assessment of the reliability of the guarantees provided in respect of them by the competent authorities. That reliability may be cast into doubt on account of the shortcomings observed in the organisation and operation of those authorities, but also in the light of the action taken by them when they have to deal with cases of non-compliance, on the part of individual establishments, with the requirements laid down in Article 12(2)(a) of the same regulation. It is only to the extent that information relating to the prevailing situation within one or more establishments is relevant to assessing the reliability of the guarantees by the authorities of the third country that the Commission is required, as the case may be, to take it into account.
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 94(1), first sentence)

(see paras 18-22)
2.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 20)
2.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 40)
Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Members of the European Parliament — Immunity — Request for waiver of immunity — Discretion of the Parliament — Judicial review — Scope

(Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, Art. 9)

(see paras 19, 20)
3.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Establishing the relevant public – Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 36)
6.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2020 –

Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO – Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)

(Case T‑879/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials – Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL – Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial, COMPAL essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 39, 41)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment Jacob’s essentials – Word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL and figurative marks FRUTA essencial, COMPAL essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 47-50, 52)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 46)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2019 (Case R 1025/2019 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Mr Jacob.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Implied decision rejecting a request – No statement of reasons – Rectified in the response to the complaint

(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.)

(see paras 40-46)
European Union trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU

(Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art 94(1), first sentence)

(see para. 102)
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Meaning – Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), first subpara. and 51(1)(a))

(see paras 21, 22)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see para. 28)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 –

UI v Commission

(Case T‑362/19)

(Civil service – Officials – Expatriation allowance – Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance – Habitual residence – Place where the person’s main occupation is carried on – Five-year reference period)

1. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Purpose – Conditions for granting – Based on objective factors – No habitual residence or main occupation in the Member State of employment before entering the service (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a)) (see paras 36, 37, 40, 41)

2. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – No habitual residence or main occupation in the Member State of employment during the reference period – Concept of habitual residence (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a)) (see paras 38, 39, 76, 77)

3. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Habitual residence outside the Member State of employment during the reference period – Calculation of the period – Periods spent in the service of a State or international organisation to be left out of account (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a)) (see paras 47-49, 60)

4. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Services performed for another State or international organisation – Definition – Requirement of a direct legal relationship between the applicant and the State or organisation – Services performed as intra-muros staff for the benefit of an institution – Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a), 2nd indent) (see para. 61)

5. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – No habitual residence or main occupation in the Member State of employment during the reference period – Burden of proof on the official (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)) (see para. 68)

6. Officials – Place of origin – Place of usual residence prior to recruitment – Different concepts – Determination of the place of origin – Criteria – Official’s centre of interest (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 7(4)) (see paras 85, 86)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for (i) annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 27 August 2018 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance and (ii) compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2021 –

Multi-Service v Commission

(Case T‑873/19)

(Environment – Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 – Fluorinated greenhouse gases – Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market – Decision annulling the registration of an undertaking – Failure to provide the required information)

Environment – Atmospheric pollution – Reduction of fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions – Regulation No 517/2014 – Allocation of quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market – Electronic registry of quotas managed by the Commission – Removal of the registration of an undertaking for failure to report required information – Burden of proof as to the reporting of that information – Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 517/2014; Commission Regulation No 2019/661, Art. 6(3))

(see paras 27-40)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2019) 6103796 of 3 October 2019, by which the Commission removed the applicant’s registration in the registry established and managed by the Commission pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2021 –

EM v Parliament

(Case T‑599/19)

(Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Psychological harassment – Request for assistance – Rejection of the request – Retirement – Duty to provide assistance – Principle of sound administration – Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

1. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character – Account taken of the reasoning therein (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 37, 38)

2. Officials – Rights and obligations – Internal inquiry into alleged psychological harassment – Administration’s discretion – Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a) (see para. 56)

3. Officials – Psychological harassment – Definition – Long-term lack of promotion – None – Right to promotion – None – Precluded (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 12a(3) and 45) (see paras 74-77)

4. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Claim of psychological harassment – Obligation to take the whole of the relevant factual background into account (see paras 88, 89, 91, 99, 100, 102, 110, 145)

5. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Time limits – Mandatory – Time-barred – Re-opening of a request for assistance – Precluded (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 24, 90 and 91) (see para. 90)

6. Officials – Organisation of departments – Assignment of staff – Reassignment in the interest of the service – Right of the person concerned to be heard – None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 93, 94)

7. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition – Burden and administration of proof (see para. 107)

8. Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Scope – Scope – Judicial review – Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 24 and 90(1)) (see paras 116, 117, 122-127, 143)

9. Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Implementation in the case of psychological harassment – Handling of a request for assistance – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 12a and 24) (see paras 118-120, 128, 129)

10. Actions brought by officials – Application for damages linked to an application for annulment – Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see paras 169, 170)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 31 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance, as confirmed by the decision of 24 May 2019 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
4.

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, as part of the public-procurement procedure, not to accept a tender – Assessment having regard to the information at the applicant’s disposal at the time the action was brought – Information provided to the applicant not clearly showing the reasons for rejecting the tender and not sufficiently explaining the characteristics and advantages of the tender accepted – Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer – Obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer – None – Sufficient statement of reasons (Art. 256 TFEU, European Parliament and Council Regulation 2018/1046, Art. 170(2) and (3)(a) and Annex I) (see paras 162-171, 174-177)
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures against Syria – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned are well founded

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2019/806 and (CFSP) 2020/719, Annex I; Council Regulations No 36/2012, Annex II, 2019/798 and 2020/716)

(see paras 51-56)
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the decision-making process – Conditions – Concrete, actual and serious detriment to that process – Scope – Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council’s Legal Service – No such detriment

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(3), first subpara.)

(see paras 42-44, 48)