ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender—Account taken, by way of reasoning, of the replies of an institution to the requests of a discarded tenderer—Conditions—No substitution of a new statement of reasons for the initial statement of reasons—Assessment of the information available to the applicant at the time the action was brought

(Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 161(2))

(see paras 36-38, 60)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2017 —

J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (JN-JOY)

(Case T‑388/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU word mark JN-JOY — Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Assessment criteria — Composite mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 16, 28, 82)

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—Word mark JN-JOY and figurative mark SPORTSWEAR (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22, 29, 96, 97)

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 between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 34)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 55, 68)

5. EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Legality—Examination by the EU judicature—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 62)

6. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark—Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 92)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 1353/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Joy-Sportswear and J & Joy.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2017 —

Costa v Parliament

(Joined Cases T‑15/15 and T‑197/15)

(Rules governing emoluments of Members of the Parliament — Old-age pension — Suspension — Recovery — Rule against overlapping — Rules on payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Reference to national legislation — Article 12(2a)(v) of the Regulation on life-annuities of Members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies — Allowance received for exercising the function of President of an Italian Port Authority — Legitimate expectations)

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 32, 34)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Intermediate measures constituting a measure implementing the final decision — Preparatory act (Art. 263, first para., TFEU) (see para. 37)

3. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action against a decision of an institution refusing to grant a benefit provided for by EU law in accordance with conditions arising from the national law of a Member State — Verification by the EU judicature that the said conditions met, where necessary taking account of the relevant national case-law — Lawfulness (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 48, 60)

4. European Parliament — Rules on costs and indemnities of MEPs — Retirement pensions — Suspension of payment where elected or governmental functions carried out with local authorities — Scope — Interpretation having regard to the national law applicable to the function exercised — Function of President of an Italian Port Authority — Inclusion (see paras 49-57)

5. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities — Concept — Silence of the administration — Exclusion (see paras 72-75)

Re:

Two actions based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the Parliament of 20 October 2014 and of 9 February 2015 concerning, respectively, suspension of the provisional retirement pension of the applicant and recovery of the sum of EUR 49 770.42 paid in that respect, as well as annulment of debit note 2015-239 of 23 February 2015 concerning that recovery.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2017 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T‑501/15)

(EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Integrated administration and control system — Reductions and exclusions where rules on cross-compliance not observed — Minor non-compliance — Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 71(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Burden of proof — Interpretation of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009)

1. Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Shared by the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulation No 73/2009; Commission Regulation No 1122/2009) (see paras 43-47)

2. Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Reductions and exclusions where rules on cross-compliance not observed — Non-application in cases of minor non-compliance — Criteria for assessment — National penalty system systematically regarding lack of documents required under the regulation’s rules on management as cases of minor non-compliance — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 73/2009, Art. 24(2); Commission Regulation No 1122/2009, Art. 71(3)) (see paras 48-51, 59, 60)

3. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation (see para. 67)

4. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Requirements on the identification and registration of animals — Non-compliance — Irrelevant to the drawing of direct payments by the farmer concerned (Council Regulations No 21/2004, Arts 3 and 6 to 8, and No 73/2009, Art. 4(1), and Annex II) (see para. 68)

5. Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Decision based on several pillars of reasoning, each sufficient to justify the operative part — Annulment of such a decision — Conditions (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see para. 70)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) to the extent that it concerns expenditure made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
Appeal — Pleas in law — Pleas seeking modification of the reasoning of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal — Criticism of grounds having no influence on the operative part of the judgment under appeal — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9)

(see para. 36)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO — Rouard (GOURMET)

(Case T‑572/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GOURMET — Prior EU figurative mark ORIGINE GOURMET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2968/95)

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Stay of proceedings — Conditions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 20(7)(c), and 50(1)) (see paras 20-24, 28-30, 37, 39, 41, 43)

2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see para. 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2015 (Case R 1985/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Rouard and Aldi.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2015 (Case R 1985/2013-4);
EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3))

(see paras 25, 27, 28)
Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(1)(d))

(see para. 28)
Approximation of laws—Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts—Directive 2014/24—Temporal application—Decision of the contracting authority choosing the type of procedure to be followed for the award of a contract which is adopted before the transposition deadline of that directive—Inapplicability of the directive—Interpretation of the provisions of Directive 2004/18 in the light of those of Directive 2014/24—Conditions

(European Parliament and Council Directives No 2004/18 and 2014/24, Art. 91)

(see paras 87, 91)
Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community provides that circumvention of anti-dumping measures is established when four conditions are met. First, there must be a change in the pattern of trade between a third country and the European Union or between individual companies in the country subject to measures and the European Union. Second, that change must stem from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. Third, there must be evidence of injury to EU industry or that the remedial effects of the anti-dumping duty are being undermined. Fourth, there must be evidence of dumping.

Accordingly, under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009, it is the task of the EU institutions to establish that anti-dumping measures are being circumvented in respect of the third country as a whole that is the subject of the investigation in relation to the circumvention, whereas it is for each individual producer-exporter to show that its particular situation justifies an exemption pursuant to Article 13(4) of the regulation.

(see paras 53, 55)
It cannot be ruled out that a measure may be regarded as a decision attributable to the State within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU following a decision of a national court.

In that regard, the Commission must, when it finds that there is no State aid in relation to the continued operation of an insolvent entity while referring to the fact that that continuation is based on a decision taken by private creditors, despite the presence of a national court on the competent committee called on to decide whether or not to continue the operation of the entity concerned, set out in the decision the reasons which led it to conclude that the decision to continue operating the undertaking is not attributable to that national court.

(see paras 104, 107, 108)
State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Discretion of the Commission – Adoption by the Commission of guidelines governing the compatibility of aid with the internal market – Consequences – Self-limitation of its discretion – Obligation to comply with the principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations

(Art. 107(3)(a) and (c) TFEU; Commission communications 2005/C 312/01 and 2014/C 99/03)

(see paras 129-133)
80

Prior to the examination of the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility, it must be recalled that, by virtue of Article 299 TFEU, acts of the Commission which impose a pecuniary obligation on persons other than States, are to be enforceable. Enforcement is to be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory of which it is carried out. The order for its enforcement is to be appended to the decision, without other formality than verification of the authenticity of the decision, by the national authority which the government of each Member State is to designate for this purpose and make known to the Commission and to the Court of Justice of the European Union. When these formalities have been completed on application by the party concerned, the latter may proceed to enforcement in accordance with the national law, by bringing the matter directly before the competent authority. Enforcement may be suspended only by a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, the courts of the country concerned are to have jurisdiction over complaints that enforcement is being carried out in an irregular manner.
Judicial proceedings – Judgment of the Court of Justice binding the General Court – Conditions – Reference back following an appeal – Points of law finally determined by the Court of Justice in the context of the appeal – Res judicata – Scope

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 53, first para., and 61; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 215)

(see paras 26-28)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 —

International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)

(Case T‑82/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative EU trade mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION — Earlier EU word mark Evolution — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — 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 — Precluded (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 16, 51)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

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 30, 33-35)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION and word mark Evolution (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 47, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61)

5. 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 — Likelihood of association — Earlier marks exhibiting characteristics enabling them to be regarded as forming part of the same series or family (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 (Case R 0725/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann and International Gaming Projects.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 May 2017 —

Gfi PSF v Commission

(Case T‑200/16)

(Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — Development, maintenance, evolution and assistance services for websites — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Bid received already open — Article 111(4)(b) of the Financial Regulation)

1. Actions for annulment—Grounds—Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons—Error of assessment—Distinction (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 33, 34)

2. European Union public contracts—Tender procedure—Rules for submission of tenders—Guarantee of genuine competition and confidentiality of the content of the tenders—Dismissal without examination of the content of tenders received already opened (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 111(1) and (4)(b)) (see paras 48, 66)

Re:

Firstly, action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of 2 and 16 March 2016 of the Publications Office of the European Union rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of the public procurement procedure concerning, in particular, the development, maintenance, evolution and assistance services for that office’s websites (OJ 2015/S 251-459901) and, insofar as necessary, of the confirmatory decision of the POEU of 22 April 2016 and, secondly, action on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 —

Kasztantowicz v EUIPO — Gbb Group (GEOTEK)

(Case T‑97/16)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark GEOTEK — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Evidence of genuine use of the mark — Delay — Rule 61(2) and (3) and Rule 65(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 — Notification by fax of the time limit given to the proprietor — Absence of circumstances capable of challenging the transmission report submitted by EUIPO — Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 57 of Regulation No 2868/95 — Request for examination of witnesses — Discretion of EUIPO)

1. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Revocation proceedings—Facts and evidence not submitted within the prescribed time-limit—Account taken—Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 51(1)(a), and 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 40(5)) (see paras 23-29)

2. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Notification—Notification by fax—Calculation of time-limits—Date of receipt (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 61(2), and 65(1)) (see paras 38-42)

3. Judicial proceedings—Time-limit for instituting proceedings—Claim barred by lapse of time—Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure—Concept (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see para. 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2015 (Case R 3025/2014-5) concerning revocation proceedings between Gbb Group and Mr Kasztantowicz.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Appeal — Grounds — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the evidence made by the Civil Service Tribunal — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 195(2))

(see paras 24, 25)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2017 —

Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)

(Case T‑306/16)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a door handle — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the prescribed period — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002)

1. Community designs — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Facts and evidence not submitted in time — Account taken — Power of assessment of the Office (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(2)) (see paras 14-17)

2. Community designs — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Action for invalidity — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(1)) (see para. 31)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Global assessment of all the elements of the prior design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 39)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Definition (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

5. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of a door handle (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 47, 49, 50, 55)

6. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 (Case R 2040/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała and Gamet.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;