ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/22

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2015 — First Islamic Investment Bank v Council

(Case T-161/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality))

(2015/C 371/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd (Labuan, Malaysia) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for partial annulment of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55) and, second, for annulment of the Council’s decision to maintain the restrictive measures concerning the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls, in so far as they concern First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd: — Point I of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran; — Point I of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders First Islamic Investment Bank to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the Council of the European Union, and the Council to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of First Islamic Investment Bank.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/22

Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2015 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-245/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Single payment scheme - Key controls - Ancillary controls - Articles 51, 53, 73 and 73a of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004))

(2015/C 346/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Murrell, M. Holt and E. Jenkinson, and subsequently by M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by D. Wyatt QC, and V. Wakefield, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), as regards one entry in Annex I to the decision relating to a 5,19 % extrapolated correction applied to expenditure incurred in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) in the financial year 2010, amounting to EUR 16 513 582,57.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/42

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — GAT Microencapsulation v OHIM — BASF (KARIS)

(Case T-720/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark KARIS - Earlier Community marks and earlier international word mark CARYX - Earlier national marks and earlier Benelux word mark AKRIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GAT Microencapsulation GmbH (formerly GAT Microencapsulation AG) (Ebenfurth, Austria) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma and C. March Cabrelles, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 (Case R 1862/2012-5) relating to opposition proceedings between BASF SE and GAT Microencapsulation GmbH (formerly GAT Microencapsulation AG).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gat Microencapsulation GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/36

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-557/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch - Rights of the defence))

(2015/C 389/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J.Möller, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C.S. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 219, p. 49), in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Federal Republic of Germany, in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2005, totalling EUR 6 1 92 951,34.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Federal Republic of Germany, in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch, for 2003 to 2005;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/17

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Direct Way and Directway Worldwide v Parliament

(Case T-126/13) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Transport for Members of the European Parliament - Decision to declare unsuccessful and to close the tendering procedure and to initiate a negotiated procedure - Award of contract to another tenderer - Equal treatment - Substantial change to the original conditions of the contract))

(2015/C 429/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Direct Way (Machelen, Belgium) and Directway Worldwide (Machelen) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and P. Biström, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul three European Parliament decisions relating to awarding the contract for transport services for Members of the Parliament in Brussels.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Direct Way and Directway Worldwide to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/34

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)

(Case T-414/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark KENZO ESTATE - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 027/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, W. von der Osten-Sacken and M. Ring, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 May 2013 (Case R 333/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr K. Tsujimoto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/21

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)

(Case T-450/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark WISENT VODKA - Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the marks - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 007/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Mrozowski and G. Rząsa, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA (Łańcut, Poland) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4);

2. Orders OHIM and Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of CEDC International sp. z o.o.

(1) OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/14

Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Ntouvas v ECDC

(Case T-94/13) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - Reports procedure - Career development report - 2010 appraisal procedure - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Time-limit for submission of the defence - Extension - Exceptional circumstances - Article 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Lawfulness of the appraisal procedure))

(2016/C 078/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ioannis Ntouvas (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented initially by R. Trott, and subsequently by J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2012 in Ntouvas v ECDC (F-107/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:182), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Ioannis Ntouvas to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/44

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-241/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from the financing - Beef and beef products - Sheepmeat and goatmeat - Tobacco - Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004))

(2016/C 048/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: The Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, S. Papaïoannou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), so far as it excludes certain expenditure carried out by the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), so far as it excludes certain expenditure carried out by the Hellenic Republic in the tobacco sector, in respect of claim year 2006;

2. Dismisses the action for the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/38

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Marquis Energy v Council

(Case T-277/13) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Admissibility - Countrywide anti-dumping duty - Individual treatment - Sampling))

(2016/C 270/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marquis Energy LLC (Hennepin, Illinois, United States) (represented initially by P. Vander Schueren, and subsequently by P. Vander Schueren and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by B. Byrne, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, lawyer, and subsequently by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents); and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ 2013 L 49, p. 10), in so far as it affects the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America in so far as it concerns Marquis Energy LLC;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Marquis Energy;

3. Orders the European Commission and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/29

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Isotis v Commission

(Case T-562/13) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - REACH112 contract - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Eligible costs))

(2016/C 106/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Skliris, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents, and initially by E. Petritsi, then by E. Roussou, lawyers)

Re:

First, applications based on Article 272 TFEU, seeking, primarily, to have the Commission’s request seeking reimbursement of pre-financing of EUR 47 197,93 paid to the applicant under contract No 238940, ‘REsponding to All Citizens needing Help (REACH112)’, concluded between the Commission and the applicant to be declared unfounded, and, alternatively, to have the Commission’s request seeking reimbursement of that pre-financing as regards the expenses submitted to the Commission for the first reference period of the REACH112 project for a sum of EUR 13 821,12 to be declared unfounded, and, second, counterclaim seeking to order the applicant to reimburse the pre-financing unduly paid in the context of that contract and interest for late payment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis’ claim seeking a declaration that as the general conditions of the Sixth Framework Programme do not apply to the contract at issue, it cannot be liable for liquidated damages under that contract and that, therefore, the European Commission infringed the contract at issue by declaring its intention to claim such damages;

2) Declares that Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis’ application seeking a finding that there is no basis for the claim for reimbursement of pre-financing which it has received under contract No. 238940 ‘Responding to All Citizens Needing Help (REACH112)’ is upheld as regards the costs declared by it for the first reference period of the REACH112 project;

3) Declares that Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — IsoTis’ action is dismissed as to the remainder;

4) Declares that the Commission’s application seeking to order reimbursement by Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis of pre-financing which it has received under contract No. 238940 ‘Responding to All Citizens Needing Help (REACH112)’ is rejected as regards the costs declared by it for the first reference period of the REACH112 project;

5) Orders that Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — IsoTis shall pay the Commission the amount of EUR 33 376,81, plus interest at the rate of 4 % per annum as of 29 October 2013 and until full payment of that amount;

6) Orders that Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — IsoTis and the Commission shall each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/26

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Lundbeck v Commission

(Case T-472/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and generic undertakings - Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU - Errors of law and of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Legal certainty - Fines))

(2016/C 402/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: H. Lundbeck A/S (Valby, Denmark) and Lundbeck Ltd (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, and T. Kuhn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Bourke, F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin, T. Vecchi and C. Vollrath, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin, T. Vecchi, C. Vollrath and T. Christoforou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and M. Healy, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders H. Lundbeck A/S and Lundbeck Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission’s costs;

3. Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/25

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — CW v Council

(Case T-516/13) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the previous measures freezing funds - Right to property - Proportionality - Factual error - Misuse of powers - Non-contractual liability - Causal link))

(2016/C 305/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CW (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M. Bishop, Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 264 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2013, L 204, p. 52), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant and, secondly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Declares that CW shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.