ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/26

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2017 — Léon Van Parys v Commission

(Case T-125/16) (1)

((Customs union - Imports of bananas from Equador - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for the remission of import duties - Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Reasonable time))

(2018/C 032/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren, R. Verbeke and J. Auwerx, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 95 final of 20 January 2016 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor and is in part justified in the particular case of another debtor but in another part not justified with regard to that particular debtor, and modifying Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 of 6 May 2010, and, second, for a declaration that Article 909 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) had effect with regard to the applicant following the judgment of 19 March 2013, Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(4) of Commission Decision C(2016) 95 final of 20 January 2016 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor and is in part justified in the particular case of another debtor but in another part not justified with regard to that particular debtor, and modifying Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 of 6 May 2010;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Firma Léon Van Parys NV.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/20

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Galocha v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy

(Case T-561/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Members of contract staff - Selection procedure for the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy - Reserve lists - Irregularity of the selection procedure - Subsequent measures intended for third parties - Interest of third parties - Interest of the service))

(2018/C 094/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Yosu Galocha (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Asmaryan Degtyareva and R-B. Dan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented by: R. Hanak, G. Poszler and S. Bernal Blanco, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, in particular, the annulment of the decision of the selection board, notified by the e-mail of the Head of Unit of Human Resources of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 4 June 2015, not to include the applicant’s name in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001, the annulment of those reserve lists and the annulment of the decisions to appoint the successful candidates included in those lists.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the selection board, notified by the e-mail of the Head of Unit of Human Resources of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 4 June 2015, not to include the name of Mr Yosu Galocha in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001;

2. Annuls the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001;

3. Annuls the decisions of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy to appoint the successful candidates included in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

5. Orders the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy to pay the costs, including those incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 328, 5.10.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-117/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/26

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — PB v Commission

(Case T-609/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) - Doctors for the Luxembourg site - Refusal of admission to the tests at the assessment centre - Limitation of the choice of second language to a restricted number of official languages of the European Union - Objection of illegality - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Non-pecuniary harm))

(2018/C 052/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PB (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg) of 28 September 2015 not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 28 September 2015 by which the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg) refused to admit PB to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-39/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/30

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2018 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Marpefa (Vieta)

(Case T-879/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Vieta - Genuine use of the trade mark - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Res judicata))

(2018/C 112/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marpefa, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2016 (Case R 1010/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd and Marpefa.

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 4 October 2016 (Case R 1010/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd and Marpefa, SL;

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/33

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe)

(Case T-212/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark FRee STyLe - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 104/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Obergriesbach, Germany) (represented by E. Warnke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 (Case R 377/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elho Business & Sport and El Corte Inglés.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/29

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Grupo Osborne v EUIPO — Ostermann (DONTORO dog friendship)

(Case T-390/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark DONTORO dog friendship - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Complementarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 152/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J.M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Daniel Ostermann (Leipzig, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2002/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Osborne and Mr Ostermann.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/45

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-629/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 (Case R 597/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas and Shoe Branding Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/27

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 –Popotas v Ombudsman

(Case T-581/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Call for an expression of interest - Secretary General of the office of the European Ombudsman - Opinion of the Advisory Committee - Failure to take that opinion into consideration - Infringement of the selection procedure - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Liability))

(2018/C 166/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Costas Popotas (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Ombudsman (represented by: L. Papadias, P. Dyrberg and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision to appoint Ms G. to the post of Secretary General of the office of the Ombudsman, of the Ombudsman’s decision of 9 November 2015 rejecting the claims brought by the applicant against that decision and of the Ombudsman’s decision not to invite him to an interview and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant has allegedly suffered following those decisions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Costas Popotas and the European Ombudsman each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016 (action initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case number F-10/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-566/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 – Josefsson v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Dismissal — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 – Josefsson v Parliament

(Case T-566/16) ( 1 )

‛(Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Dismissal — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)’

Parties

Applicant: Erik Josefsson (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and M. Forgeois, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially M. Dean and L. Deneys, then by M. Dean and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of 19 December 2014 to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, secondly, compensation in respect of the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment of the European Parliament dated 19 December 2014 concerning the termination of Erik Josefsson’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-138/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-241/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark EW — Earlier EU word mark WE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW)

(Case T-241/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark EW — Earlier EU word mark WE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. van Oerle and L. Bekke, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2016 (Case R 426/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between WE Brand and El Corte Inglés.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 February 2016 (Case R 426/2015-2);

2. Orders EUIPO and WE Brand Sàrl to bear their own respective costs and to pay those incurred by El Corte Inglés, SA .

( 1 ) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Case T-619/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Sicignano v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’ — Earlier EU figurative mark CAPRI — 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))

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Sicignano v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’)

(Case T-619/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’ — Earlier EU figurative mark CAPRI — 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))’

Parties

Applicant: Pasquale Sicignano (Santa Maria la Carità, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: L. Rampini and J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Inghirami Produzione Distribuzione SpA (IN.PRO.DI) (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 (Case R 806/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between IN.PRO.DI and Mr Sicignano.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Pasquale Sicignano to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Case T-461/16: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Kaddour v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Misuse of powers — Principle of sound administration — Principle of the force of res judicata — Infringement of Article 266 TFEU — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights — Proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination)

Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Kaddour v Council

(Case T-461/16) ( 1 )

‛(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Misuse of powers — Principle of sound administration — Principle of the force of res judicata — Infringement of Article 266 TFEU — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights — Proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination)’

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors, and by R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Bauerschmidt and G. Étienne, and subsequently by J. Bauerschmidt and by S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision (CFSP) 2013/255 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Khaled Kaddour to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

( 1 ) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Simpson v Council

(Case T-646/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Upgrade - Classification in grade - Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition - Dismissal of the action at first instance after referral back by the General Court - Composition of the panel of judges which adopted the order at first instance - Procedure for appointment of a judge to the Civil Service Tribunal - Tribunal established by law - Principle of the right to a judge assigned by law))

(2018/C 364/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council, (F-142/11 RENV, EU:F:2016:136), and 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 (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council (F-142/11 RENV);

2. Refers the case to a chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PA v Parliament

(Case T-608/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - 2014 appraisal period - Promotion - 2015 appraisal period - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of power - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))

(2018/C 328/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PA (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and V. Montebello-Demogeot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the applicant’s staff report for 2014, as finalised by the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 20 October 2015, second, of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 9 December 2015 awarding him one merit point for 2014, third, of the Parliament’s decision, communicated to the staff of that institution on 30 November 2015, not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 11 in the 2015 promotion exercise and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 9 June 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 21 January 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 364 of 3.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case No F-38/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).