ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/45

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (CAFE DEL SOL)

(Case T-549/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark CAFE DEL SOL - Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol - Failure to submit evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rights of the defence))

(2017/C 030/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2015 (Case R 1888/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2015 (Case R 1888/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/24

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — ANKO v REA

(Case T-270/15) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Subsidy agreement entered into in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - ESS project - Conformity with the contractual provisions of the suspension of payments to the applicant and of the conditions for lifting that suspension of payments - Default interest))

(2017/C 022/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as agents, assisted initially by O. Lytra and subsequently by A. Saratsi, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the suspension, imposed by REA, of the payment of the balance of the financial contribution owed to the applicant in respect of the implementation of Subsidy Agreement No 217951, for the financing of the ‘Emergency Support System’ project, entered into in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), amounts to an infringement of its contractual obligations and that that sum must be paid to the applicant, together with default interest, to be calculated from the date of service of the action.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Declares that the Research Executive Agency (REA) suspended its payments to ΑΝΚΟ AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias in breach of Section ΙΙ.5 (3)(d) of the general conditions annexed to Subvention Agreement No 217951 for the financing of the ‘Emergency Support System’ project, entered into in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013);

2. Orders REA to pay to ΑΝΚΟ AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias a sum corresponding to the intermediate payments which should not have been suspended concerning the latter’s participation in the ‘Emergency Support System’ project, within the limits of the balance of the financial aid available at the time of their suspension, together with default interest, starting from, for each reporting period, the expiry of the period for payment of 105 days following receipt of the corresponding reports, at the rate in force on the first day of the month of the payment default, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union, C series, increased by three and a half percentage points;

3. Orders REA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/26

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Mengozzi v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano (TOSCORO)

(Case T-510/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark TOSCORO - Earlier protected geographical indication ‘Toscano’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 142 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Declaration of partial invalidity))

(2017/C 078/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Mengozzi (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: T. Schuffenecker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and S. Crabbe, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Albisinni, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2015 (Case R 322/2014-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP and Mr Mengozzi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Roberto Mengozzi to pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/28

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Abertis Telecom Terrestre and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha v Commission

(Joined Cases T-37/15 and T-38/15) (1)

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of an undertaking - Economic activity - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Distortion of competition - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - New aid))

(2017/C 038/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Abertis Telecom Terrestre, SA (Barcelona, Spain), Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA (Toledo, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, A. Balcells Cartagena and M. Bolsa Ferruz, and subsequently J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Bolsa Ferruz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 ((C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009)) implemented by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha, as amended by Decision C(2015) 7193 final of 20 October 2015 correcting certain errors contained in Decision C(2014) 6846 final.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Abertis Telecom Terrestre, SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/45

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-145/15) (1)

((EAGGF and EAFRD - Area-related measures - Expenditure excluded from financing - Flat-rate financial corrections - Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/63)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented initially by: R.-H Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, D. Bulancea, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, and subsequently by: R. Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 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 16, p. 33).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 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) in so far as it concerns Romania;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Romania.

(1) OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/23

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defence v Council

(Case T-255/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Legal person supporting, materially or financially, actions which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Fundamental rights - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 078/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp., formerly OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Haak, C. Stumpf, M. Brüggemann and B. Thiemann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by N. Rouam and J.-P. Hix, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, based on Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1524 of 14 September 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 157), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1514 of 14 September 2015, implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 30), Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/359 of 10 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 37), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/353 of 10 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 1) and the Council’s letter of 31 July 2015, in so far as those measures concern the applicant and retain it on the list of entities subject to restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/34

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — IR v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)

(Case T-132/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark popchrono - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IR (represented by: C. de Marguerye, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Malte Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2015 (Case R 217/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Pirelli Tyre and Mr IR.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr IR to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/27

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2017 — DI v EASO

(Case T-730/15) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - EASO staff - Member of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Probationary period - Dismissal decision - Action for annulment and for damages - Dismissal of the action as manifestly inadmissible at first instance - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations))

(2017/C 121/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DI (represented by: I. Vlaic and G. Iliescu, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) (represented by: W. Stevens, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015, DI v EASO (F-113/13, EU:F:2015:120), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015, DI v EASO (F-113/13);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/20

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — JYSK v Commission

(Case T-403/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - ERDF - Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Refusal to grant a financial contribution to a major project - Undertaking responsible for project implementation - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 195/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JYSK sp. z o.o. (Radomsko, Poland) (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Lyal, B.-R. Killmann and M. Clausen, and subsequently by R. Lyal and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 3228 of 11 May 2015, refusing to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ drawn up by the Republic of Poland for the 2007-2013 programming period.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders JYSK sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/32

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-501/15) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Integrated administration and control system - Reductions and exclusions where the rules on cross-compliance are 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))

(2017/C 151/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and H. Stergiou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Brodie, subsequently by J. Kraehling, finally by J. Kraehling and G. Brown, acting as Agents)

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, 39) to the extent that it concerns the expenditure made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/23

Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 — Kiselev v Council

(Case T-262/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States - Natural person actively supporting or implementing actions undermining or threatening Ukraine - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Freedom of expression - Proportionality - Rights of defence))

(2017/C 249/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev (Korolev, Russia) (represented by: J. Linneker, Solicitor, T. Otty, Barrister, and B. Kennelly QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1524 of 14 September 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 157) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1514 of 14 September 2015 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 30), and (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/359 of 10 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 37) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/353 of 10 March 2016 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 1), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/27

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Abdulkarim v Council

(Case T-304/15) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 213/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: G. Étienne and N. Rouam, subsequently by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and finally by: S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), insofar as the applicant’s name has been entered in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria inasmuch as they relate to Mr Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Abdukarim.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/36

Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — DD v FRA

(Case T-742/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Disciplinary penalty - Reprimand - Termination of contract - Right to be heard - Non-material harm))

(2017/C 283/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DD (represented: initially, by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche and, subsequently, by L. Levi, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 October 2015, DD v FRA (F-106/13 and F-25/14, EU:F:2015:118), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders DD to bear his own costs;

3. Orders the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.