ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judicial proceedings–Application initiating proceedings–Formal requirements–Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based–Lack of arguments in support of the application–Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 29, 30)
Judicial proceedings–Application initiating proceedings–Formal requirements–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; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 46)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2017 – Delfin Wellness v EUIPO – Laher (Infrared and sauna cabins)

(Case T-114/16)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community designs representing infrared and sauna cabins — Earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of novelty — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier designs before the date of priority — Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Right to be heard — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

1. Community designs–Appeals procedure–Action before the EU judicature–Jurisdiction of the General Court–Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it–Not included (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61(2)) (see paras 27, 29)

2. Community designs–Ground for invalidity–Lack of novelty–Previous disclosure of identical design–Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b) and 7(1)) (see paras 47-50)

3. Community designs–Procedural provisions–Statement of reasons for decisions–First sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002–Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU–Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning–Lawfulness–Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence) (see paras 68, 69)

4. Community designs–Procedural provisions–Decisions of the Office–Observance of the rights of the defence–Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62) (see para. 112)

5. Community designs–Appeals procedure–Recourse to the oral procedure–Discretion of the Office (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 64(1)) (see para. 114)

Re:

ACTIONS brought against three decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Cases R 849/2014–3, R 850/2014–3 and R 851/2014–3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Delfin Wellness and Ms Laher.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 42(2) and (3))

(see para. 21)
Officials—Non-contractual liability of the institutions—Conditions—Compensation for loss caused to an official or member of staff—Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials—Scope

(Arts 268 TFEU, 270 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

(see para 30)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 7 February 2018 — Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia « Roshen » (CRABS)

(Case T‑795/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CRABS — Earlier international registration of the figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ — 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))

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 67, 78)

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—Figurative mark CRABS and figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 62, 63, 68-70, 82-86)

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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2507/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Moscow Confectionary Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ and Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials—Members of the temporary staff—Recruitment—Renewal of a fixed-term contract—Administration’s discretion—Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials—Account taken of the interests of the staff member concerned—Judicial review—Limits—Manifest error of assessment—Meaning

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 8)

(see paras 26-31, 71, 75)
Concerning the classification of a mark as a ‘position’ mark, it should be noted that neither Regulation No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark nor Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark refer to such marks as a specific category of marks. However, in so far as Article 4 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 4 of Regulation No 2017/1001) does not contain an exhaustive list of signs capable of being EU trade marks, that circumstance is irrelevant to the registrability of ‘position marks’.

In addition, it appears that ‘position marks’ are similar to the categories of figurative and three-dimensional marks as they relate to the application of figurative or three-dimensional elements to the surface of a product. It is apparent from that case-law that, when assessing the distinctiveness of a mark, the classification of a ‘position mark’ as a figurative or three-dimensional mark, or as a specific category of marks, is irrelevant.

Moreover, it should be noted that the case-law recognises that figurative marks may in fact be ‘position’ marks.

(see paras 32-34)
EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Word mark mycard2go

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see paras 26, 29, 37, 46, 51)
In the case of complex assessments, the EU authorities enjoy, in some areas of EU law, a broad discretion, so that review by the EU judicature of those assessments must be confined to verifying whether the rules on procedure and on the statement of reasons have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers.

The same is true of the scientific assessment of a research proposal by a panel of experts from the European Research Council (ERC) and individual reviewers from the disciplines concerned. In that regard, any discrepancy between the majority view of the individual reviewers and the panel’s final decision is not capable of demonstrating that the panel pursued an objective other than scientific excellence, infringed the ERC rules or committed a manifest error of assessment. Any divergence between the sum of the individual assessments and the decision of the panel is part of the normal course of the procedure for evaluating the scientific value and relevance of a research proposal. Thus, unless it can be demonstrated that there are factual errors or a manifest error of assessment, the possibility that an argument raised in a single individual assessment might persuade the panel during its discussions falls within the normal course of the scientific evaluation procedure and does not infringe the ERC rules.

(see paras 70, 71, 76, 77, 80)
European Parliament—Rules on costs and indemnities of MEPs—Parliamentary assistance allowances—Paying agent to manage amounts paid—Provision by a parliamentary assistant of remunerated services to a paying third party—Not permissible

(Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament, Art. 36(1))

(see para. 55)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 –

Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)

(Case T‑882/16)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DOLFINA — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Statement of reasons for decisions—Aim (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 27)

2. EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Causes of revocation—Absence of genuine use of a trade mark—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15, 42(2), 51(1)(a) and 57(2)) (see paras 36-43)

3. EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Examination of the application—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Use by a third party with the consent of the trade mark proprietor—Express or implied consent (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1) and (2)) (see paras 68, 69)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1897/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between La Dolfina and Sipral World.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2018 –

Hansen Medical v EUIPO – Covidien (MAGELLAN)

(Case T-222/16)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark MAGELLAN — Genuine use — Burden of proof — Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Procedural irregularity committed by the Cancellation Division — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Oral proceedings — Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark–Surrender, revocation and invalidity–Causes of revocation–Absence of genuine use of a trade mark–Proof of use of the earlier mark–Partial use–Effect–Concept of (part of the goods or services) covered by the registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15 and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 25-28)

2. EU trade mark–Appeals procedure–Appeal brought against a decision by a department of EUIPO–Examination by the Board of Appeal–Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see para. 44)

3. EU trade mark–Procedural provisions–Statement of reasons for decisions–First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009–Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 49, 50)

4. EU trade mark–Procedural provisions–Recourse to the oral procedure–Discretion of the Office (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 77(1)) (see para. 58)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2016 (Cases R 3092/2014-2 and R 3118/2014-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Hansen Medical and Covidien.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 19 July 2018 –

Simpson v Council

(Case T‑646/16 P)

(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)

1. EU law—Principles—Fundamental rights—Compliance ensured by the EU judicature—Principle of the right to a judge assigned by law—Infringement of the procedure for appointment of a judge to the Civil Service Tribunal—Infringement of the said principle (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.) (see paras 38, 41-46)

2. EU law—Principles—Rights of defence—Audi alteram partem rule—Compliance in the context of judicial proceedings—Scope—Plea raised of the court’s own motion without inviting the parties to submit observations—Infringement—None (see para. 39)

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

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;
The EU Courts have jurisdiction to hear actions relating to the management by Common Security and Defence Policy missions of their staff, even where such management concerns ‘field’ operations.

Under the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the contractual liability of the European Union is governed by the law applicable to the contract in question.

Since the applicant’s employment contracts do not specify the law applicable to them, the action can be examined on the sole basis of those employment contracts, including the provisions of the code of conduct and discipline of the international Mission of the Union concerned which form an integral part of them, in the light of the general principles of European Union law concerning the establishment of contractual liability. According to those principles, three conditions must be satisfied if an action for contractual liability is to be successful: first, the institution concerned must have failed to fulfil its contractual obligations; secondly, the applicant must have suffered damage; and, thirdly, there must be a causal link between the institution’s conduct and the damage.

(see paras 61, 62, 66)
Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 8 November 2018 –

Cocchi and Falcione v Commission

(Case T‑724/16 P)

(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)

1. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Subsequent disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 50)

2. Actions brought by officials — Action for damages directly linked to an action for annulment — Assessment of the legality of the conduct of an institution according to the pleas and arguments set out in the application for annulment — Loss of the applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings during the proceedings — Irrelevant (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 80-82, 84, 86)

3. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Injury — Causal link — Meaning — Burden of proof (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 94-96, 104)

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

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;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2018 –

RA v Court of Auditors

(Case T‑874/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2016 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 — No staff report — Comparison of merits)

1. Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration's discretion — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45) (see paras 37, 44, 56)

2. Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration's discretion — Scope — Taking account of staff reports — Other factors that may be taken into consideration (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45) (see paras 38-40, 45, 46, 58)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 4 March 2016 not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AD 11), in the 2016 promotion procedure, by not including his name in the list of officials promoted in the 2016 promotion exercise.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Court of Auditors of 4 March 2016 not to promote RA to grade AD 11 in the 2016 promotion exercise;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2018 –

CX v Commission

(Case T‑743/16 RENV)

(Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measure — Removal from post — Rights of the defence — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Article 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Articles 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Liability — Actual damage — Causal link)

1. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Procedure — Decision of the appointing authority imposing a disciplinary penalty without first hearing the person concerned — Impossibility to hear the interested person reasonably justified by medical certificates — Infringement of the right to be heard (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2)(a), 51(1) and 52(1); Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex IX, Arts 4 and 22(1)) (see paras 145-149, 158, 173, 174, 176)

2. Actions brought by officials — Unlimited jurisdiction — Possibility of an order of the General Court’s own motion that the defendant institution pay compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 91(1)) (see para. 178)

3. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Meaning — Application in proceedings concerning the Staff Regulations — Criteria (Art. 270 TFEU) (see para. 201)

4. Actions brought by officials — Actions for damages — Annulment of the illegal act in dispute — Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage — Limits (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 204, 205)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFUE seeking, first, annulment of the Decision of 16 October 2013 in which the Commission found that the applicant was guilty of two instances of serious misconduct and, consequently, removed him from his post without reduction pro tempore to his entitlement to a retirement pension and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 16 October 2013 by which the Commission removed CX from his post without reduction pro tempore to his entitlement to a retirement pension;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Syria — Ambit of the review

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2016/850, (CFSP) 2017/917 and (CFSP) 2018/778)

(see paras 88-90, 101)
Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime — Rights of defence — Notification of inculpatory evidence — Subsequent decision maintaining the name of a person on the list of persons concerned by those measures — No infringement of the right to be heard

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2), 47 and 52; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2016/850, (CFSP) 2017/917 and (CFSP) 2018/778)

(see paras 52-57)
Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Meaning — European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) urges Member States to recover anti-dumping duties from the applicant — Powers of assessment of the national authorities as to the action to be taken following OLAF’s recommendations No causal link

(Arts 267 and 340, 2nd para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2013, Arts 11(6) and 12(3))

(see paras 48-58, 62)
Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Reply – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Documents annexed to the application or reply – Admissibility – Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 21, 22)
117

As regards the contract renewal request, the AECE examined it as carefully as possible but had no vacant post enabling an extension of the applicant’s contract of employment as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks. By way of proof the Parliament points out that, subsequently to 31 May 2015, the date on which applicant’s contract ended, only one member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks was employed in the Media Directorate, from 3 August 2015 to 2 February 2016, in order to replace a member of staff of the Europarl TV Unit of the Media Directorate. Moreover, on 15 April 2015, when the request for recruitment of that member of staff was drawn up, the applicant, despite being listed as that member of staff on a CAST selection list, was not available because she was still on sick leave, as she had been since the end of September 2014. The Parliament further points out that there is currently only one member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks from the function group IV left in the Audiovisual Unit, following the reassignment during the course of the contract of another member of the contract staff from the same function group of that unit to the Europarl TV Unit. The Parliament adds that the coordination of the Newsdesk Hotline team in the Audiovisual Unit is henceforth assured by an official, that the day-to-day tasks performed by the applicant when she was there have been given to an official and that a third official has been recruited to complete the team. The Visitors Programme Unit has not hired any members of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks after 31 May 2015. These explanations show that there were no possibilities for renewing the applicant’s contract in those two units or, more generally, in the Media Directorate.