ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court of 13 June 2022 — Mendes de Almeida v Council

(Case T-334/21) (1)

(Civil service - Appointment of the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Portugal - No dispute between the Union and one of its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations and the CEOS - Article 270 TFEU - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 303/60)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida (Sobreda, Portugal) (represented by: R. Leandro Vasconcelos, M. Marques de Carvalho and P. Almeida Sande, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and J. Gil, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1117 of 27 July 2020 appointing the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2020 L 244, p. 18), in so far as it appoints Mr José Eduardo Moreira Alves d’Oliveira Guerra as a European Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 8 March 2021 rejecting her complaint lodged on 10 February 2021 against the contested decision.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Ms Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — Grupa ‘Lew’ v EUIPO — Lechwerke (GRUPALEW.)

(Case T-672/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark GRUPALEW. - Earlier national figurative mark LEW - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use - Article 10(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 24/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Grupa ‘LEW’ S.A. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lechwerke AG (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Gerling, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 August 2021 (Case R 2763/2019-4).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Grupa ‘LEW’ S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

3. Lechwerke AG shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 22 September 2022 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran)

(Case T-624/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran - Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Prohibition of reformatio in pejus - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 463/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Primagran sp. z o.o. (Stegna, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Herrburger, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2021 (Case R 2486/2020-4).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Primagran sp. z o.o. shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz.

(1) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 2 June 2022 — Tóth v Commission

(Case T-17/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - OLAF investigation concerning the public lighting activities of Élios Innovatív - Application for access to the final investigation report - Implied refusal of access - Express decision to grant access adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/57)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Bertalan Tóth (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta and B. Czudar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the implied decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 10 November 2021 by which OLAF rejected his confirmatory application for access to the document entitled ‘Final OLAF Report OF/2015/0034/B4 concerning the public lighting activities of Élios Innovatív Zrt’.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The European Commission shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Rivière v Parliament and ID

(Case T-54/22 R)

(Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Member of the Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 148/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jérôme Rivière (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Identity and Democracy political group (ID)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 21 January 2022 by which the applicant was suspended from that group and of the decision of the members of the ID political group of 25 January 2022 by which he was excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 29 July 2022 — Santos v EUIPO (Shape of a citrus press)

(Case T-51/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a citrus press - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Decision adopted following the revocation of an earlier decision - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 398/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Santos (Vaulx-en-Velin, France) (represented by: C. Bey, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 November 2021 (Case R 281/2020-1).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

2. Santos is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Perez Lopes Pargana Calado v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-31/22) (1)

(Public procurement of services - Withdrawal of the contested decisions - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 340/60)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ana Teresa Perez Lopes Pargana Calado (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: Marques Matias, lawyer)

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

Re:

By her action brought, in essence, under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union rejecting her applications to participate in the public procurement procedure for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into Portuguese.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The Court shall bear its own costs and those incurred by Ms Ana Teresa Perez Lopes Pargana Calado.

(1) OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — 1906 Collins v EUIPO — Peace United (bâoli BEACH)

(Case T-160/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/63)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — HCP v EUIPO — Timm Health Care (PYLOMED)

(Case T-138/22) (1)

(2022/C 463/92)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

30 September 2010

Case F-41/05

Kurt J acobs

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Classification in grade under the new, less favourable rules — Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Jacobs seeks annulment of the decision of 11 February 2005 rejecting his complaint against the decisions of 16, 24 and 31 August 2004 and, in so far as is necessary, annulment of the latter decisions in so far as they classify him in a lower grade than that announced in the notice concerning competition COM/B/1/02. He also seeks an order that the Commission pay him damages of EUR 250 000.

Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Status of official — Conditions for acquiring such status not satisfied in the absence of a regular appointment

(Staff Regulations, Art. 3)

According to the principles of law which govern the European Union civil service, the appointment of an official may be effected only in accordance with the requirements and procedures laid down by the Staff Regulations.

Since the legal tie which binds the official to the administration is governed by the Staff Regulations and is not of a contractual nature, Article 3 of the Staff Regulations, the wording of which was not amended by Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, implies that the appointment of an official necessarily has its origin in a unilateral instrument of the appointing authority stating the date on which the appointment takes effect and the post to which the official is appointed. Such an appointment cannot, therefore, result from a supposed voluntary agreement resulting from the acceptance of an offer of employment, a fortiori where the offer of employment stems from agents of the institution who do not have the status of appointing authority.

Consequently, it is only after being the subject of an appointment decision by that authority that a successful candidate in an open competition can claim the status of official and therefore demand the application to him of provisions of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 43, 44, 52)

See:

18/69 Fournier v Commission [1970] ECR 249

T-40/91 Ventura v Parliament [1992] ECR II-1697, paras 40 and 41; T-74/98 Mammarella v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-151 and II-797, paras 25 to 27; T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II-2523, paras 54 and 55
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Full Court)

24 June 2008

Case F-116/05

Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni

v

European Central Bank (ECB)

(Civil service – ECB staff – Remuneration – Method of calculation of annual salary adjustment – Enforcement of a judgment of the Community judicature – Confirmatory act – Inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, annexed to the EC Treaty, in which Mrs Cerafogli and Mr Poloni seek in particular and essentially, first, annulment of their salary slips for the month of July 2001, as drawn up by the ECB in February 2005, in enforcement of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2003 in Case T‑63/02 Cerafogli and Poloni v ECB [2003] ECR II‑4929, and, second, the award of damages.

Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Action – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Confirmatory act – Not included

(Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Art. 36.2; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 42)

The case-law according to which the act adversely affecting the applicant is the act that directly and immediately affects the legal situation of the person concerned, which is not how a purely confirmatory measure, such as an act which contains no new factors as compared with a previous measure adversely affecting the applicant, can be described, must be applied by analogy to actions based on Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and on Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank.

(see paras 41-43)

See:

204/85 Stroghili v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 389, para. 6

T-14/91 Weyrich v Commission [1991] ECR II‑235, para. 35; T‑173/95 Biedermann and Others v Court of Auditors [1998] ECR‑SC I‑A‑273 and II‑831, para. 39
EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :116 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Ch amber)
30 September 2010
Case F-41/05
Kurt J a cobs
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Candida tes placed on a r eserve list prior to the entry into 
force of the new Staff Regulations — Classification in grade under the new, less favourable rules — 
Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in which M r Jacobs seeks annulment of the 
decision o f 11 February 2005 r ejecting his complaint against the decisions of 16, 24 a nd 
31 August 2004 a nd, in so far as is necessary, annulment of the latter decisions in so far 
as th ey classify him in a l ower grade th an th at announced in th e no tice concerning 
compe tition C OM/B/1/02. He also seeks an order that the Commission p ay him da mages 
of EUR 250 000.
Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.
Summ ary
Officials — Status of official — Conditions for acquiring such status not satisfied in the absence of a 
regular appointment
(Staff Regulations, Art. 3)
According to the principles of law which govern the European Union c ivil service, the appointment of 
an official may be effected on ly in accordance with th e requirements and procedures laid d own by the 
Staff Regulations.
Since the legal tie which binds the official to th e ad ministration is governed by the Staff Regulations 
and is no t of a c ontractual nature, Article 3 of the Staff Regulations, the wording of which was no t 
amended by Regulation N o 723/2004 a mending the Staff Regulations of Officials and th e Conditions 
of Employment of Other Servants, implies that the appointment of an official necessarily has its origin 
in a u nilateral instrument of the appointing authority stating the da te on w hich the appointment takes 
effect and th e post to which th e official is appointed. Such an appointment cannot, th erefore, result 
from a s upposed voluntary agreeme nt resulting from th e acceptance of an offer of emp loyment, 
a fortiori w here the offer of emp loyment stems from agents of the institution w ho do no t have th e 
status of appointing authority.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :116SUMM ARY—CASEF-41/05
JACOBSvCOMM ISSION
Consequently, it is on ly after being th e subject of an appointment decision b y that authority that a 
successful candida te in an open compe tition c an claim th e status of official and therefore demand the 
application to him of provisions of the Staff Regulations.
(see paras 43, 44, 52)
See:
18/69 F ournier v C omm ission [1970 ] ECR 249
T-40/91 V entura v P arliament [1992 ] ECR II-1697 , paras 40 a nd 41; T-74/98 M ammarella v C omm ission [1999 ] 
ECR-SC I- A-151 a nd II-797, paras 25 t o 27; T-58/05 C enteno M ediavilla and O thers v C omm ission [2007 ] 
ECR II-2523 , paras 54 a nd 55
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Recruitment – Classification in step – Additional seniority in step

(Staff Regulations, Arts 29(2) and 32, third para.; Council Regulation No 723/2004)

In the absence of any transitional provision in Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the third paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, the wording of which is clear and unambiguous, remains wholly applicable, after that regulation came into force, to the classification in step of any member of the temporary staff who is appointed an official in the same grade that he occupied previously. He therefore retains the seniority in step acquired in his capacity as a member of the temporary staff.

In that respect, the appointment of a staff member in active employment to a higher post pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations cannot be considered to be an ‘external’ recruitment preventing any account being taken of the years of service which the newly appointed official has accumulated as a member of the temporary staff.

(see paras 49, 58, 62)

See:

F-21/06 Da Silva v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-000 and II-A-I-000, para. 75
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Contract staff – Recruitment – University diploma or degree required – Meaning of university diploma or degree

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 82(2)(c)(i))

2. Officials – Recruitment – Classification in grade – University diploma or degree required – Comparison of degrees, diplomas and professional accreditations awarded in the different Member States

(Council Directive 89/48)

1. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it should be considered that the requirement of possession of a university degree, which follows from the provisions of Article 82(2)(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, is necessarily to be construed in the light of the definition of that phrase in the legislation of the Member State in which the candidate completed the studies on which he relies.

(see para. 34)

See:

108/88 Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission [1989] ECR 2711, para. 14

T-2/90 Ferreira de Freitas v Commission [1991] ECR II‑103, para. 32; T-82/92 Cortes Jimenez and Others v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑69 and II‑237, para. 34

2. The effect of the harmonisation carried out by Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration is not to limit the discretion which an institution enjoys when comparing the respective value of diplomas in its recruitment policy. Under the scheme of Directive 89/48, the comparison of diplomas is carried out for the purpose of access to certain regulated activities in the different Member States. Such an assessment cannot be confused with the complex assessment of the respective academic value of the qualifications obtained in the different Member States for the purpose of determining the grade attached to a post within an institution of the European Communities.

(see para. 85)

See:

T-299/97 Alonso Morales v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑249 and II‑1227, paras 35 and 36; T-25/03 De Stefano v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑125 and II‑573, para. 53
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Conditions of eligibility – Experience

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 5)

The requirement that a candidate must have professional experience to be admitted to a competition based on qualifications and tests for access to the Community civil service must be interpreted exclusively in the light of the aims of the competition, as set out in the general description of the duties to be performed.

Where it is a question of assessing whether periods of work as part of doctoral studies or postgraduate research relevant to the duties to be performed may be counted as professional experience, an interpretation of the notice of competition on the basis of the specific requirements of national legislation would inevitably lead to differences in treatment in view of the differences between the post-university systems in the various Member States. Such work must be counted as required professional experience if it is real and genuine, excluding research work carried out for study purposes that proves to be such a small component as to be purely marginal and incidental, and if it is remunerated, it being understood that the amount of remuneration, even if it is below the minimum wage, cannot have any consequence as to whether the work is to be treated as professional experience. Neither the sui generis nature of the employment relationship, whether paid or self-employed, under national law, nor the origin or designation of the funds from which the remuneration is paid can determine whether the work is to be treated as requisite professional experience for the purposes of the competition notice.

The fact that the research work might have further developed the candidate’s training and subsequently enabled him to obtain the qualification of doctor does not, as such, prevent it from being classified as professional experience within the meaning of the competition notice.

(see paras 64, 66, 67, 70)

See:

C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I‑7573, para. 16

T-50/89 Sparr v Commission [1990] ECR II‑207, para. 18; T-101/96 Wolf v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑351 and II‑949, para. 74; T‑329/03 Ricci v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑69 and II‑315, para. 52