ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-433/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Court of Justice of the European Union - Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions - Application for access submitted by a former judge of the General Court - Partial refusal of access - Non-contractual liability of the European Union)

(2019/C 399/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 18 and 22 May 2017 rejecting the applications for access to certain documents, submitted by the applicant on 27 January 2017 and 14 December 2016 respectively, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the non-material damage the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged misconduct on the part of the Court of Justice of the European Union when it refused to grant his applications for access to information, submitted between 15 July and 10 August 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 18 May 2017 which rejected the second confirmatory application for access to certain documents made by Mr Franklin Dehousse, to the extent that that decision refused access to ‘exchanges, in both directions, between President Skouris, or his Head of Cabinet, and all German public authorities between 2011 and 2015 inclusive’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Commission

(Case T-168/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the administrative procedure concerning alleged State aid implemented by the Austrian authorities in favour to concession holders pursuant to the law on gaming - Refusal to grant access - Plea relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality)

(2020/C 77/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by A. Schuster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Ehrbar, F. Erlbacher and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by N. Görlitz and D. Moore, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 249 final of 13 January 2017 refusing the request for access to documents concerning Case SA.40224 [2014/CP] on the basis of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA

(Case T-806/17) (1)

(REACH - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 - Requirement for joint submission of data - Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out - Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance - Failure to reach an agreement - Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy - Decision granting access to a joint submission - Legal basis - Broad discretion of ECHA - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty)

(2019/C 423/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen-am-Rhein, Germany) and REACH & colours Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (REACH & colours Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: R. Cana, D. Abrahams, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Jacquet, and T. Basmatzi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision DSH-30-3-0123-2017 of ECHA of 2 October 2017 granting Sustainability Support Services (Europe) AB access to the joint submission lodged by REACH & colours, as lead registrant for the substance hexasodium 2,2'-[vinylenebis[(3-sulphonato-4,1-phenylene)imino[6-(diethylamino)-1, 3, 5-triazine-4,2-diyl]imino]]bis(benzene-1,4-disulphonate), EC No 255-217-5 and CAS No 41098-56-0.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BASF SE, REACH & colours Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (REACH & colours Kft.) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Balti Gaas v Commission and INEA

(Joined Cases T-236/17 and T-596/17) (1)

(Financial assistance under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020 - Field of trans-European energy infrastructure - Calls for proposals - Action for failure to act - No invitation to act - Inadmissibility - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Partial inadmissibility - Decision rejecting a proposal - Manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Competence of the Commission)

(2021/C 62/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Balti Gaas OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: E. Tamm, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and Y. Marinova, acting as Agents), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo and L. Di Paolo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in INEA’s letter of 17 February 2017 concerning the applicant’s proposal in response to the second call for proposals published for 2016 in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), on the basis of the multiannual work programme adopted under Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 1587 final of 17 March 2016 on amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 2080 establishing the multiannual work programme for granting financial aid in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure under the CEF for the period 2014-2020 (Case T-236/17), and, second, principally, under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a reasoned decision regarding the applicant’s proposal and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 1593 final of 14 March 2017 on the selection and award of grants for actions contributing to projects of common interest under the CEF in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure (Case T-596/17).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Balti Gaas OÜ in Case T-236/17, the European Commission being ordered to bear its own costs in that case;

3. Orders Balti Gaas OÜ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-596/17;

4. Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kerkosand v Commission

(Case T-745/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid for an investment project in western Slovakia - Regional investment aid - Rejection of a complaint - Decision not to raise any objections - Conditions for exemption - Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Scope of the Commission’s supervisory power - Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 - Concept of SME - Article 3(2) and (3) of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 - Data used for the staff headcount and the financial amounts and reference period - Article 4 of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 - Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market - Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Serious difficulties)

(2020/C 378/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kerkosand spol. s r. o. (Šajdíkove Humence, Slovakia) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and C. Holtmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia) (JO 2017, C 336, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia);

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Calhau Correia de Paiva v Commission

(Case T-202/17) (1)

(Language regime - Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of competition law, corporate finance, financial economics, industrial economics and macroeconomics (AD 7) - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Plea of illegality - Limitation of the choice of the second language of the competition to English, French or German - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service)

(2021/C 297/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ana Calhau Correia de Paiva (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Villante, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon, I. Melo Sampaio and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, firstly, of the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/293/14 — Administrators (AD 7) in the fields of competition law, corporate finance, financial economics, industrial economics and macroeconomics of 9 November 2015 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list drawn up at the end of the selection procedure, secondly, of the decision of 23 June 2016 reviewing that first decision, thirdly, of the decision of 22 December 2016 rejecting the complaint filed by the applicant against the first decision and, fourthly, of the reserve list drawn up at the end of the selection procedure referred to above in so far as that reserve list concerns the field of competition law.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/293/14 of 23 June 2016, transmitted by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), rejecting the request for review made by Ms Ana Calhau Correia de Paiva following her exclusion from the reserve list of the competition by a decision of 9 November 2015;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Ms Calhau Correia de Paiva to bear one third of her own costs;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Calhau Correia de Paiva.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Del Valle Ruíz and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-510/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking Union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Right to be heard - Delegation of power - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 18 and 20 and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014)

(2022/C 284/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruíz (Mexico, Mexico) and 41 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J. Pobjoy, Barrister, B. Kennelly QC, and S. Walker, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents), Single Resolution Board (represented by: J. King and M. Fernández Rupérez, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, J. Etienne, M. Menegatti, M. Sammut, L. Stefani and M. Martínez Iglesias, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, J. Bauerschmidt, A. Westerhof Löfflerová and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, A. Rodríguez Conde, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyers, and G. Cahill, Barrister)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Executive Session of the SRB of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA, and for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Antonio Del Valle Ruíz and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Banco Santander, SA;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Air France v Commission

(Case T-338/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Conditions for granting immunity - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Duration of the participation in the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of the anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Air France (Tremblay-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and A. de La Cotardière, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for partial annulment of that decision and a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3. Orders Société Air France to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (Support pillow)

(Case T-30/18) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design No 2371591-0001 (Support pillow) - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Sending of a document to EUIPO by means of a contact form - Sending of a document to EUIPO by electronic means and by fax))

(2019/C 93/75)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Yado s.r.o. (Handlová, Slovakia) (represented by: D. Futej, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Cottrell and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dvectis CZ s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Litváková, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 (Case R 1017/2017-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Dvectis CZ and Yado.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 November 2017 (Case R 1017/2017-3);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Yado s.r.o.;

3. Orders Dvectis CZ s.r.o. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Asahi Intecc v EUIPO — Celesio (Celeson)

(Case T-36/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Celeson - Earlier international word mark CELESIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 25/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd (Nagoya, Japan) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Celesio AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2017 (Case R 1004/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Celesio and Asahi Intecc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Bayer Intellectual Property v EUIPO (Representation of a heart)

(Case T-123/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a heart - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 131/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Graul, S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 (Case R 145/2017-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a heart as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ)

(Case T-256/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SCHUTZ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/53)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Arezzo Indústria e Comércio, SA (Belo Horizonte, Brazil) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J.M. Pimenta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2018 (Case R 661/2017-4) relating to registration of the word sign SCHUTZ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Arezzo Indústria e Comércio, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2019 — Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.)

(Case T-555/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 187/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Medrobotics Corp. (Rayanham, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: B. Bittner and U. Heinrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2018 (Case R 463/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign See More. Reach More. Treat More. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Medrobotics Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2019 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

(Case T-265/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Formata - Earlier international figurative mark Formata - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Rule 37 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Conditions governing the representation of the earlier mark - Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation 2018/625) - Legitimate expectations - Reimbursement of the costs of representation - Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001 and Rule 94 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 164/50)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Illona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2018 (Case R 2032/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Biernacka-Hoba and Formata Bogusław Hoba

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 February 2018 (Case R 2032/2017-4), in so far as it ordered Ms Ilona Biernacka-Hoba to pay the costs incurred by Formata Bogusław Hoba for the purposes of the invalidity proceedings and the appeal and fixed the amount of the costs that Ms Biernacka-Hoba had to pay to Formata Bogusław Hoba at EUR 1000, and alters that decision to the effect that Ms Biernacka-Hoba must not be ordered to pay such a sum;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.