ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Agriculture—Common agricultural policy—Financing by EAGF and ERDF—Simultaneous promotion campaigns in third countries for olive oil, one financed by the EAGF and intended to promote olive oil of European origin, and the other financed by the ERDF and intended to promote olive oil of Spanish origin—Lack of coordination between the Commission’s staff responsible for managing the two programmes—Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination—None

(Art. 18 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21; Council Regulation No 3/2008)

(see paras 42-47, 52, 57)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 –

Leifheit v EUIPO (Position of four green squares on a scale)

(Case T‑184/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU trade mark consisting of four green squares on a scale — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Assessment of distinctive character—Sign being confused with the appearance of the designated product (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22, 27)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Position mark consisting of four green squares on a scale (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32-38, 46-50, 58-59)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Assessment of distinctive character—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 45)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 1115/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of four green squares on a scale as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2018 –

Wajos v EUIPO (Form of a container)

(Case T‑313/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional trade mark — Form of a container — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Meaning—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 12-14)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Three-dimensional mark made up of the form of a container (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 18-21, 36, 37, 39, 41)

3. 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—Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 25)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself—Distinctive character—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26-28, 33)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Lack of distinctiveness—Trade mark made up of several elements—Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark—Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 31)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 (Case R 1526/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the form of a container as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 February 2017 (Case R 1526/2016-1);
European Union—Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions—Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia—Freezing of funds of persons involved in the misappropriation of public funds and of natural or legal persons, bodies or organisations associated with them—Ambit of the review—Proof the measure well-founded—Obligation, for the Council, to assess whether it is necessary to seek disclosure of further information or evidence from the national authorities—Scope

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP)

(see paras 33, 34, 42, 43, 127)
2.

EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Decision 2004/258 of the European Central Bank — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the public interest concerning the financial, monetary or economic policy of the EU or a Member State or the financial situation of the ECB or national central banks — Protection of the public interest concerning the stability of the financial system in the EU or in a Member State — Discretion of the ECB — Judicial review — Limits (Arts 127 TFEU and 282 TFEU; Decision 2004/258 of the European Central Bank, as amended by decisions 2011/342 and 2015/529, Art. 4(1)(a), 2nd indent) (see paras 38-42)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 November 2018 –

Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)

(Case T‑424/17)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark FRUIT — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Res judicata — Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001) )

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 25, 27-31, 39, 40, 111, 120, 121)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Examination by EUIPO of its own motion — None (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15, 42(2), 51(1) and 57(2)) (see para. 26)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Word mark FRUIT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 55, 86, 99, 106, 109, 110, 112-114)

4. Judicial proceedings — Res judicata — Scope (see para. 119)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 2119/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Takko Holding and Fruit of the Loom.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2018 –

Szentes v Commission

(Case T‑830/17)

(Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice — Open competition — Admission conditions — Professional experience — Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition — Request for review — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of information in the application form — Manifest error of assessment — Breach of the notice of competition)

1. Actions brought by officials — Plea of illegality — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — Notice of competition — Challenge in the context of a request for review free of charge — Right to an effective remedy — Scope — Internal appeal — Not included (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 19-22)

2. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see paras 25, 31)

3. Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — Conditions for admission — Fixing by the competition notice — Selection board’s assessment of candidates’ professional experience — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Arts 2 and 5) (see paras 36-41, 43, 47-48)

4. Officials — Competitions — Selection Board — Independence — Limits — Adoption of unlawful decisions — Obligations of the appointing authority — Judicial review (see paras 70, 71)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of the chair of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AD/330/16 — Nuclear safeguards inspectors (AD 7) of 24 February 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition and, second, as far as necessary, of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 29 September 2017 rejecting his complaint.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Modification of the terms of the dispute as brought before the Board of Appeal — Not permissible

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2))

(see para. 19)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 –

Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)

(Case T‑822/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark iGrill — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 21)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of registrability by the Office — Production of evidence — Not required (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 30)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 45)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark iGrill (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 46, 47, 52)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 (Case R 579/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign iGrill as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2018 –

TP v Commission

(Case T‑464/17)

(Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Deduction from salary — Maintenance awarded by a national court in the context of divorce proceedings — Sincere cooperation with the national courts — Circumscribed powers — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour — Rule of correspondence — Act adversely affecting a person — Application for damages — Compliance with the pre-litigation procedure)

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the proceedings — Precise definition of the subject matter of the proceedings — Lack of precision — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(1)(d)) (see paras 26, 27)

2. Actions brought by officials — Subject matter — Directions to the administration — Inadmissibility (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 29)

3. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Correspondence between the complaint and the application — Same subject matter and legal basis — Submissions and arguments not made in the complaint but closely related to it — Admissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 31-33)

4. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Concept — Salary statement showing clearly the existence and content of an administrative decision of individual application — Included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 39-41)

5. Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Officials and other servants of the European Union — Subject to national law as regards legal relationships connected with their private lives — Enforcement of a decision of a national court determining a maintenance allowance in the context of an official’s divorce proceedings — Obligations of the institution concerned (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 23, first para.) (see paras 46, 69, 80)

6. Officials — Obligation of administration to provide assistance — Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 24) (see para. 78)

7. Actions brought by officials — Actions for damages — Pre-litigation procedure — Different process depending on whether there is an act having adverse effect (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 86)

8. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of the application for annulment leading to dismissal of the application for damages (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 88)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission to make a monthly deduction from the applicant’s salary in respect of maintenance to be paid to his ex-wife pursuant to the ruling of an Italian court and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
The adopted children of an official or of his spouse are considered to be ‘dependent children’ under the first paragraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations on condition that they are ‘actually being maintained by the official’ Second, children who are not the legitimate, natural or adoptive children of the official or his spouse but whom the official has ‘a responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States’ legislation on the protection of minors’ are considered to be ‘dependent children’ under the third paragraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. Finally, exceptionally, and by reasoned decision of the appointing authority of the institution, body or agency of the Union concerned, any person, including an adult and a member of the official’s family, other than his legitimate, natural or adopted children or those of his spouse, may be treated, under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as a ‘dependent child’ where the official has a ‘legal responsibility to maintain’ that person and where the ‘maintenance [of that person] involves heavy expenditure’.

The officials and other servants referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 2(2) and Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and in third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations cannot be regarded as being in the same situation; nor, therefore, can the establishment, by the Staff Regulations, of different conditions for the grant of the dependent child allowance constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment.

Furthermore, even on the assumption that the dependent child allowance is intended to cover the education costs incurred by an official or other servant for the child for whom he has responsibility, it cannot be considered that the right to education enshrined in Article 14 of the Charter requires that the grant of that allowance be extended to a child placed in the guardianship of an official or other servant under a judicial decision based on the legislation of a third country.

(see paras 64, 70, 77)
Officials — Sick leave — Unauthorised stay outside the place of employment — Consequences — Setting against the duration of annual leave or loss of the right to remuneration where no annual leave is left — Different treatment for an official who is a whistle-blower — Not included — Request for assistance addressed to the administration regarding alleged psychological harassment — Irrelevant

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 60 and 22a; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Arts 131(5) and 127)

(see paras 37-39, 43, 45, 46)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2019 –

TV v Council

(Case T‑453/17)

(Civil service — Probationary officials — Probationary period — Probationary report — Opinion of the Joint Reports Committee — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Work not adequate — Article 34 of the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)

1. Officials — Recruitment — Probationary period — Decision not to establish a probationary official — Decision to dismiss an established official — Difference in legal nature — Respective assessment criteria to be applied (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 34) (see paras 48, 51)

2. Officials — Recruitment — Probationary period — Purpose — Conditions under which probationary period progressed (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 34(3)) (see paras 49, 50, 70)

3. Officials — Recruitment — Probationary period — Assessment of results — Assessment of the suitability of a probationary official — Judicial review — Limits — Manifest error of assessment — Meaning (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 34) (see paras 52-54)

4. Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Principle of sound administration — Scope — Taking into account of official’s interests (see paras 93, 94)

5. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see paras 101-103, 112)

6. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of the application for annulment leading to dismissal of the application for damages (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 121, 122)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking first, the annulment of the decision of the Council of 19 August 2016 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probationary period and of the decision of the Council of 11 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Written questions put to the parties — Freedom of the General Court in its absolute discretion to assess the facts and evidence

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 88 and 89(1))

(see paras 33-35, 38)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2019 –

Grammer v EUIPO (Representation of a shape)

(Case T‑762/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark representing a shape — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13-15, 17-19)

2. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 23, 24)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative sign representing a shape (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25-37)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 (Case R 2250/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of a shape as an EU figurative mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 September 2017 (Case R-2250/2016);