ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 November 2015 —

August Brötje v OHIM (HydroComfort)

(Case T‑845/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark HydroComfort — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 13-15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 16)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 HydroComfort (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 21, 23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 (Case R 1302/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign HydroComfort as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
The admissibility of an action must be assessed by reference to the situation prevailing at the time when the application was lodged. If at that time the conditions which must be satisfied to enable an action to be brought are not fulfilled, the action is therefore inadmissible. Such considerations may be applied to situations in which an applicant, through a statement of modification, seeks annulment of a new measure replacing or modifying a measure with the same aim and which is already the subject of an application for annulment.

A document lodged at the Court Registry, during the proceedings, modifying the application constitutes a procedural document which, without prejudice to a subsequent decision of the Court on admissibility, is equivalent to the bringing of an action by means of an application.

Consequently, a statement of modification lodged at the Court Registry by the representative of the applicant after the applicant’s death must be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see paras 80, 82-84, 89)
Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 —

ADR Center v Commission

(Case T‑644/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the ‘Civil Justice’ programme — Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 299, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 156(3), and 161(1)) (see paras 16-18)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 25-29, 31, 33-35, 37, 38)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the enforcement of Commission Decision C(2014) 4485 final of 27 June 2014 concerning the recovery of the sum of EUR 194275.34, plus interest, owed by ADR Center Srl with reference to debit notes Nos 3241311168, 3241311170 and 3241311175 relating to EUR 62649.47, EUR 78991.12 and EUR 52634.75 respectively.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T‑644/14 R.
(d)

Article 8 is replaced by the following text: “Article 8 1. Officials entitled to the expatriation or foreign residence allowance shall be entitled, within the limit set out in paragraph 2, in each calendar year to a flat-rate payment corresponding to the cost of travel from the place of employment to the place of origin as defined in Article 7 for themselves and, if they are entitled to the household allowance, for the spouse and dependants within the meaning of Article 2. … 2. The flat-rate payment shall be based on an allowance per kilometre of geographical distance between the official’s place of employment and his place of origin. Where the place of origin as defined in Article 7 is outside the territories of the Member States of the Union as well as outside the countries and territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the territories of the Member States of the European Free Trade Association, the flat-rate payment shall be based on an allowance per kilometre of geographical distance between the official’s place of employment and the capital city of the Member State whose nationality he holds. Officials whose place of origin is outside the territories of the Member States of the European Union as well as outside the countries and territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the territories of the Member States of the European Free Trade Association and who are not nationals of one of the Member States shall not be entitled to the flat-rate payment. The kilometric allowance shall be: EUR 0 for every km from 0 to 200 km EUR 0.3790 for every km from 201 to 1 000 km EUR 0.6316 EUR for every km from 1 001 to 2 000 km EUR 0.3790 for every km from 2 001 to 3 000 km EUR 0.1262 for every km from 3 001 to 4 000 km EUR 0.0609 for every km from 4 001 to 10 000 km EUR 0 for every km over 10 000 km To the above kilometric allowance a flat-rate supplement shall be added, amounting to: — EUR 189.48 if the geographical distance between the place of employment and the place of origin is between 600 km and 1 200 km, — EUR 378.93 if the geographical distance between the place of employment and the place of origin is greater than 1200 km. – The above kilometric allowances and flat-rate supplements shall be updated every year in the same proportion as remuneration. … 4. The preceding provisions shall apply to officials whose place of employment is within the territories of the Member States. … The flat-rate payment shall be based on the cost of air travel in economy class.”’
12

The Director concluded from this that a quantity of up to 3000 tonnes of sugar could have been imported outside the quota, if the licence had been used to its full extent. He added that the maximum loss of traditional own resources that could have occurred amounted to EUR 1257000, since the specific rate for customs duties for the import of sugar had been set at EUR 419 per tonne net. He asked the Slovenian authorities to make available to the budget of the Union the amount corresponding to the loss of traditional own resources for which the Slovenian authorities were financially responsible, and which could have stemmed from their mistake. In order to limit the amount of default interest under Article 11 of Council Regulation, as amended, (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 1150/2000’), he recommended that the Slovenian authorities should act as quickly as possible. He clarified that all the accounting information should also be sent to the Commission so that it could calculate the default interest. To that end, a table to be completed was annexed to the contested letter.
77

As regards the first objection, it must be observed that paragraphs 38 to 50 of the judgment of 26 October 2015 in Portnov v Council (T‑290/14, EU:T:2015:806) constitute the whole of the Court’s assessment. To claim, as the Council does, that those paragraphs relate only to matters of fact would be tantamount to saying that that judgment is a purely factual judgment. While it is true that the key part of that judgment consists of an examination of the only factual element capable of being examined, that is to say, the letter of 3 March 2014, the fact remains that that examination proceeded in the context of a reminder of the case-law and legal principles and is at the heart of the Court’s legal assessment of the way in which the Council discharged the burden of proof in relying on that letter. Furthermore, as is apparent from paragraph 41 of the judgment of 26 October 2015 in Portnov v Council (T‑290/14, EU:T:2015:806), the Council used the letter in question to include not only Mr Portnov’s name on the list but also those of other former senior officials, including the applicant, and the Court considered that that letter did not constitute a sufficiently solid factual basis within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 62 above. It follows from this that the question of law on which the Court ruled — that is whether the reasons for the listing, which were essentially the same for all the persons concerned, were substantiated by sufficiently specific and concrete evidence — is identical, taking into account the specific features of proceedings relating to restrictive measures, to that raised by the second plea in the present case.
Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2015 —

Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA

(Case T‑669/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — REACH — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 19-21)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Purely hypothetical damage base on the happening of future and uncertain events — Insufficient to justify urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see para. 29)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure — Risk of fundamental rights being undermined — Not sufficient to constitute serious damage — Assessment according to the circumstances of the case (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see para. 31)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 35-37, 40)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of ECHA of 16 July 2015 to include company B. as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2015 —

Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T‑187/15)

‛State aid — Undertaking operating a network of bus connections in the Region of Campania — Compensation for the public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato — Commission decision declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in a situation analogous to that of the aid recipient’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in an analogous situation to that of the aid beneficiary — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 18, 20-23)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the internal market — Action by an association representing the collective interests of persons not themselves individually concerned — Association not having an interest of its own in pursuing the action — Inadmissibility (Arts 108 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24-26)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision on State aid — Action by an association entrusted with defending the collective interests of undertakings — Admissibility — Conditions — Action brought in parallel by a Member — Inadmissibility of the action of the association (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 27)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 29)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1074 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for CSTP (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 112).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 April 2016 —

Zhang v EUIPO — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith)

(Case T‑295/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Anna Smith — Earlier EU word mark SMITH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 15)

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 — Trade mark sought composed of one or more patronymics — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion according to the same criteria as those applicable to other categories of trade marks (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks Anna Smith and SMITH (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 24, 27)

4. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Request presented expressly and on time by the applicant — Possibility of submitting the application for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2)) (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2015 (Case R 1559/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG and Mr Yongyu Zhang.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2016 —

InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission

(Case T‑82/15)

‛Seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) — Grant agreement for the ATRACO project — Debit notes and decisions contained in letters — No need to adjudicate in part — Contractual nature of the dispute — Partial inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Legal basis of an action — Choice for the applicant and not the EU judicature — Admissibility assessed in relation to the applicant’s choice (see para. 36)

2. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission — EU judicature not having jurisdiction — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 299 TFEU) (see paras 40, 41, 48, 49)

3. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 52-54)

4. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities (see para. 58)

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Agreement concluded by the Commission in the context of an EU financing programme — No obligation to state reasons (Art. 296, second para., TFEU) (see para. 60)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 by which the Commission confirmed its refusal to finance costs invoked by the applicant, of the Commission decision contained in debit note No 3241211514 of 23 October 2012, and of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 requesting the applicant to return the funds paid and to pay liquidated damages of EUR 12814.10.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims directed against the Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 October 2012 and the debit note of 23 October 2012;

2. Dismisses the action for the remainder, as being manifestly inadmissible;
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission

(Case T‑595/15)

‛Action for annulment — Alleged refusal to submit a legislative proposal for the establishment of a European law association — Act not amenable to review — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Determination of the subject-matter of the dispute — Modification of the initial pleadings at the stage of observations on the objection of inadmissibility — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 84(1)) (see para. 12)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Purely informative measure — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 16,18-20)

Re:

ACTION on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 17 August 2015 by which it declined to submit a legislative proposal aimed at establishing a European association.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 May 2016 —

Volkswagen v EUIPO — Andrã (BAG PAX)

(Case T‑324/15)

‛EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark BAG PAX — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 12-14)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Word mark BAG PAX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 15-18)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2015 (Case R 1971/2014-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Volkswagen and BAGPAX Cargo Systems.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings—Absolute bar to proceeding—To be considered of the Court’s own motion—Decision taken by way of reasoned order—Condition—Observance of the rights of the defence

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 129)

(see para. 32)