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

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — YG v Commission

(Case T-599/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2019 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Comparison of merits - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)

(2022/C 2/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 November 2019 not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 in the 2019 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders YG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Sun West and Others v Commission

(Case T-623/20) (1)

(State aid - Production of electricity by photovoltaic installations - Obligation to purchase the electricity at a higher price than the market price - Rejection of a complaint - Second subparagraph of Article 12(1) and Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589)

(2022/C 73/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Sun West (Saint-Allouestre, France), JB Solar (Saint-Allouestre), Azimut56 (Saint-Allouestre) (represented by: S. Manna, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, Acting as agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 28 July 2020 rejecting the applicants’ complaint concerning State aid granted unlawfully by the French Republic to photovoltaic energy producers under pricing decrees of 10 July 2006, and 12 January and 31 August 2010, in order to have the aid declared incompatible with the internal market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sun West, JB Solar and Azimut56 to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.
2.

Orders the EIB to pay an invalidity pension to KL from 1 February 2019 and default interest on that pension until such time as payment has been made in full, the default interest rate being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations and in force on the first day of the month in which the deadline for payment falls, increased by two percentage points, less the sums paid by way of remuneration to the applicant during the same period and in respect of which it would appear that, due to the payment of the invalidity pension, they were not payable to the applicant;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — MN v Europol

(Case T-586/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 119/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MN (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) (represented by: A. Nunzi, O. Sajin and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of Europol’s decision of 6 March 2020 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract for an indefinite period and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MN to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

(Case T-699/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle or other bird of prey - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Phonetic similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 95/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 426/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Retail Royalty and Fashion Energy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fashion Energy Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — ON v Commission

(Case T-730/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Retroactive refusal - Recovery of undue payments - Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 198/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ON (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 12 March 2020 obliging him to repay an amount of EUR 38 897,39 by way of recovery of undue payments on account of the incorrect payment of an expatriation allowance since his recruitment and, second, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered because of the late adjustment by the Commission of that incorrect payment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OA v EESC

(Case T-671/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty - Written warning - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Liability)

(2022/C 171/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OA (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboudi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Social and Economic Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Decision No 293/19 of the EESC of 5 December 2019 imposing the penalty of a written warning on the applicant and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision No 293/19 of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 5 December 2019 imposing the penalty of a written warning on OA;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the EESC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Group Nivelles v EUIPO — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Shower drainage channel)

(Case T-327/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a shower drainage channel - Earlier design produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Scope - Article 63(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Oral proceedings and measures of inquiry - Articles 64 and 65 of Regulation No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Identification of the earlier design - Earlier whole design - Determination of the features of the contested design - Global comparison)

(2022/C 244/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Group Nivelles NV (Gingelom, Belgium) (represented by: J. Jonkhout, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and G. Predonzani, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Easy Sanitary Solutions BV (Oldenzaal, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Eijsvogels, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2020 (Case R 2664/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Group Nivelles and Easy Sanitary Solutions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Group Nivelles NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-291/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 207/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, Solicitor, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Haas, P. Mahnič, S. Van Overmeire and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD)

(Case T-739/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark WATERFORD - Action for annulment - Article 63(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Admissibility - Trade mark liable to mislead the public - Article 51(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 303/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unite the Union (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Mortelé and B. Lieben, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 September 2020 (Case R 2683/2019-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Unite the Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC;

3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2022 — Ryanair v Commission (Condor; rescue aid)

(Case T-577/20) (1)

(State aid - German air transport market - Loan granted by Germany to Condor Flugdienst - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring undertakings in difficulty - Intrinsic difficulties that are not the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group - Difficulties that are too serious to be dealt with by the group itself - Risk of disruption to an important service)

(2022/C 284/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel and S. Blazek, lawyers)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 7429 final of 14 October 2019 on State aid SA.55394 (2019/N) — Germany — Rescue aid to Condor (OJ 2020 C 294, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs, and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Condor Flugdienst GmbH to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KL v EIB

(Case T-651/20) (1)

(Civil service - Personnel of the EIB - Unjustified absences - Failure to report for medical examination - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 418/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KL (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and I. Zanin, acting as Agents, and A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

By his action, based on Article 270 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 28 February 2020 to the effect that his absences from the medical examinations of 23 December 2019, 3 and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of the Annex X to the EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB's Staff Regulations, and, secondly, compensation for the damage he suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 28 February 2020 that KL's absences from medical examinations on 23 December 2019, 3 and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of Annex X to EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Tartu Agro v Commission

(Case T-150/20) (1)

(State aid - Agriculture - Lease contract for agricultural land in Estonia - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Determination of the market price - Private operator principle - Complex economic assessments - Judicial review - Taking into account of all relevant factors - Duty of care)

(2022/C 340/37)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Tartu Agro AS (Tartu, Estonia) (represented by: T. Järviste, T. Kaurov, M. Valberg and M. Peetsalu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 252 final of 24 January 2020 on State aid SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP) — Alleged illegal aid to AS Tartu Agro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 252 final of 24 January 2020 on State aid SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP) — Alleged illegal aid to AS Tartu Agro;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tartu Agro, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1269 of 10 September 2020 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1267 of 10 September 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/448 of 12 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/446, of 12 March 2021, implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1470 of 10 September 2021 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1464 of 10 September 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/411 of 10 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/408 of 10 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Dmitry Vladimirovich Ovsyannikov was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB

(Case T-761/20) (1)

(Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Exclusion from the procurement procedure - Abnormally low offer - Attempts to unduly influence the decision-making process - Failure to observe the rules on communication - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Non-contractual liability)

(2022/C 463/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Sfyri and M. Koutrouli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: I. Koepfer and J. Krumrey, acting as Agents, and by A. Rosenkötter, lawyer)

Re:

By its action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annulment of (i) the decision of the Procurement Committee of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 1 October 2020 to exclude its tenders for the three lots in the procurement procedure Provision of services and works for IT application delivery, (ii) the decision of the ECB Procurement Review Body of 9 December 2020 and (iii) all the related subsequent decisions of the ECB; second, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, it seeks compensation for the damage it allegedly suffered as a result of that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Union Syndicale Solidaires des SDIS de France et DOM/TOM v Commission

(Case T-152/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Filing of a complaint with the Commission concerning the application of EU law - Time limit for reply - Right to good administration - Mandatory due diligence - Reasonable period - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2022/C 51/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union Syndicale Solidaires des services départementaux d’incendie et de secours (SDIS) de France et DOM/TOM (Nîmes, France) (represented by: O. Coudray, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s negligent failure to deal with her complaint, registered on 27 June 2019 under reference CHAP(2019)01840, for alleged breach of European Union law by the French Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Union Syndicale Solidaires des services départementaux d’incendie et de secours (SDIS) de France et DOM/TOM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC)

(Case T-125/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark EUROBIC - Earlier EU figurative marks BiG, BANCO BiG and BiGlobal TRADE - Earlier national word marks BANCO BIG and earlier national figurative mark BANCO BiG - 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))

(2022/C 171/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Banco de Investimento Global, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Lucas, 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, intervener before the General Court: Banco BIC Português, SA (Lisbon) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 (Case R 607/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Banco de Investimento Global and Banco BIC Português.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Banco de Investimento Global, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.