ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — OI v Commission

(Case T-705/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) - Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings - No communication of the intermediate marks or the weighting of the elements of a test specified in the competition notice)

(2022/C 73/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska and T. Lilamand, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the selection board for the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — Administrators of 25 March 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of that selection board of 16 December 2019 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the selection board for the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD6) — Administrators of 25 March 2020 not to include OI on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 6 in the field of development cooperation and neighbourhood policy;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — YP v Commission

(Case T-581/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2019 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Comparison of merits - Use of languages in the context of duties performed by officials assigned to linguistic duties and by officials assigned to duties other than linguistic - Seniority in grade - Presumption of innocence - Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Duty to state reasons - Compliance with a settlement agreement)

(2022/C 37/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YP (represented by: J. Van Rossum and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 November 2019 not to include the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted in the 2019 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders YP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2022 — Tecnica Group v EUIPO — Zeitneu (Shape of a boot)

(Case T-483/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU three-dimensional mark - Shape of a boot - Declaration of partial invalidity - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Decisions of EU trade mark courts ruling on an action for a declaration of non-infringement - Res judicata)

(2022/C 119/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tecnica Group SpA (Giavera del Montello, Italy) (represented by: C. Sala, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zeitneu GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Dumoulin, F. Hagemann, M. Giorcelli and M. Venturello, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2020 (Case R 1093/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zeitneu and Tecnica Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tecnica Group SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Zeitneu GmbH.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — MG v EIB

(Case T-573/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Refusal to grant allowances to non-custodial parent - Conciliation procedure - Reasonable time - Liability)

(2022/C 84/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MG (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the EIB’s letters of 11 October 2018, 7 January 2019 and 30 July 2020 on the basis of which the applicant was deprived of the entitlement of family allowances and derived financial rights and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) to pay the sum of EUR 500 to MG in respect of the non-material damage suffered;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders MG and the EIB to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — LA v Commission

(Case T-456/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Criteria to assess professional experience - Compliance of criteria applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 198/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for review of the decision not to admit her to the next phase of the open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, secondly, of the decision of the appointing authority of 6 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 refusing the request for review of LA’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OJ v Commission

(Case T-709/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition EPSO/AD/380/19 - Decision to refuse to extend the test dates for a competition - Time limits set for passing a selection test in a test centre - Right to a fair procedure - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 148/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: OJ (represented by: H.-E. von Harpe, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Hohenecker and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, in essence, annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 30 January 2020, by which that office refused to extend the date of the selection test for competition EPSO/AD/380/19.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders OJ to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii v Commission

(Case T-4/20) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Request for reimbursement - Financial audit - OLAF investigation - Conflict of interest on account of family or emotional ties - Principle of good faith - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of marital status - Legitimate expectations - Action for annulment - Debit notes - Acts inseparable from the contract - Act not open to challenge - Right to effective judicial review - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 244/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: Ł. Stępkowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action, the applicant seeks, primarily, on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, a declaration that the contractual claim of the European Commission set out in six debit notes issued on 13 November 2019 for an aggregate amount of EUR 180 893,90, comprising a principal amount of EUR 164 449 and damages of EUR 16 444,90, is non-existent, and an order that the Commission repay the amounts contained in those debit notes, and, in the alternative, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annulment of the Commission’s letter of 12 November 2019, which was addressed to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — KF v EIB

(Case T-299/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Complaint of psychological harassment - Administrative investigation - Decision rejecting the complaint - Error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Liability)

(2022/C 207/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: K. Carr and J. Pawlowicz, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the EIB’s decision of 27 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of harassment and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 27 January 2020;

2. Orders the EIB to pay KF the amount of EUR 3 000;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by KF.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty)

(Case T-441/20) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 - Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty - Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive countervailing duty - Legal basis - Non-retroactivity - Legal certainty - Article 266 TFEU - Proportionality - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 103 of the Union Customs Code - Registration Regulation - Plea of illegality - Admissibility)

(2022/C 294/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/526 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited, following the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 (OJ 2020 L 118, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jindal Saw Ltd and Jindal Saw Italia SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Prigozhin v Council

(Case T-723/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Freezing of funds - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - List of persons subject to restrictions on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Initial inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons concerned - Obligation to state reasons - Errors of assessment - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Foreseeability of acts of the European Union)

(2022/C 284/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin (Saint-Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.C. Cadilhac and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, a Russian national, seeks the annulment, first, of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1483 of 14 October 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2020 L 341, p. 16), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1481 of 14 October 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2020 L 341, p. 7), in so far his name was included in the lists of persons and entities set out in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2015 L 206, p. 34), and Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (OJ 2016 L 12, p. 1) (‘the lists in question’) and, secondly, after modification of the application, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1251 of 29 July 2021 amending Decision 2015/1333 (OJ 2021 L 272, p. 71), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1241 of 29 July 2021 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation 2016/44 (OJ 2021 L 272, p. 1), in so far as his name was thereby maintained on the lists in question.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — DD v FRA

(Case T-470/20) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Disciplinary regime - Removal from post - Opening of an administrative investigation - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings - Requirement for impartiality - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Articles 11, 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of loyalty - Legal certainty - Freedom of expression - Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Presumption of innocence - Right to be heard - Reasonable period of time - Proportionality of the sanction)

(2022/C 418/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DD (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant, DD, seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 12 November 2019 by which it imposed on him the disciplinary sanction of removal from post (‘the decision to remove from post’) and of the decision of 15 April 2020 rejecting the complaint against the decision to remove from post (‘the decision rejecting the complaint’) and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage which he has suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders DD to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

(1) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Aerospinning Master Franchising v EUIPO — Mad Dogg Athletics (SPINNING)

(Case T-246/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SPINNING - Trade mark which has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relevant public)

(2022/C 340/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aerospinning Master Franchising s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Labalestra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Venice, California, United States) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 February 2020 (Case R 369/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between itself and the intervener.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising s. r. o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — MV v Commission

(Case T-624/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/364/19 (AD 7) - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next stage of the competition - Competition eligibility requirements - Insufficient professional experience - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Rules on languages - Equal treatment)

(2023/C 7/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MV (represented by G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by T. Lilamand and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 29 October 2019 rejecting his request for review of the decision of 5 June 2019 not to admit him to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/364/19 — Security Officers (AD 7), the notice of competition and the draft list of officials selected to take part in the competition and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by him as a result of those acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MV to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)

(Case T-711/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CMS Italy - Earlier international figurative marks representing a feline bounding towards the left and earlier international figurative mark PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the signs - Proof of reputation - Overall assessment)

(2022/C 463/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA (Alonte, Italy) (represented by: M. Salvador and R. Brogi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 September 2020 (Case R 2215/2019-4).

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 24 September 2020 (Case R 2215/2019-4) as regards the oppositions based on earlier trade marks No 480 105 and No 593 987;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Puma SE, EUIPO and CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Jieyang Defa Industry v EUIPO — Mattel (Doll’s Head)

(Case T-84/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a doll’s head - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2022/C 51/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd (Jieyang, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias and F. Codevelle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mattel, Inc. (El Segundo, California, United States) (represented by: A. Pompe-Ciszewska and P. Mleczak, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2020 (Case R 2021/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mattel and Jieyang Defa Industry Co.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Distintiva Solutions v EUIPO — Makeblock (Makeblock)

(Case T-86/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Makeblock - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Makeblock Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 (Case R 988/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Distintiva Solutions and Makeblock.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.