ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Infineon Technologies Dresden and Infineon Technologies v Commission

(Joined Cases T-233/19 and T-234/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by Germany for some large electricity consumers - Exemption from network charges in respect of the 2012-2013 period - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful, and ordering the recovery of the aid paid - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Concept of aid - State resources)

(2021/C 471/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant in Case T-233/19: Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-234/19: Infineon Technologies AG (Neubiberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/56 of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/c) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 StromNEV (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG and Infineon Technologies AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — AH v Eurofound

(Case T-52/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Disclosure of personal data - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Lack of competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a member of staff - Document prepared and signed by an external law firm - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2021/C 431/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (represented by: F. van Boven and M. Jepsen, acting as Agents, and by C. Callanan, Solicitor)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 22 March 2018, prepared and signed by an external law firm, concerning a request for assistance made by the applicant as regards the disclosure of his personal data and a claim for damages, and second, compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision and that disclosure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 22 March 2018, prepared and signed by an external law firm, concerning a request for assistance made by AH as regards the disclosure of his personal data;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by AH.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as those acts concern Mr Khaldoun Al Zoubi;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — JMS Sports v EUIPO — Inter-Vion (Spiral hair elastics)

(Case T-823/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a spiral hair elastic - Disclosure of the earlier designs - Disclosure on the Internet - Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Equality of arms - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

(2021/C 502/31)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: JMS Sports sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: D. Piróg and J. Słupski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Inter-Vion S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Grucelski and T. Gawliczek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 (Case R 1573/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Inter-Vion and JMS Sports.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders JMS Sports sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Inter-Vion S.A.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Sped-Pro v Commission

(Case T-791/19) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Rail freight transport services market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Reasonable time - EU interest in pursuing examination of a complaint - Determination of the authority best placed to examine a complaint - Criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning respect for the rule of law - Risk of infringement of a complainant’s rights if a complaint is rejected - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 148/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sped-Pro S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Kozak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, L. Wildpanner and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 6099 final of 12 August 2019 (Case AT.40459 — Rail freight forwarding in Poland — PKP Cargo), rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning alleged infringements of Article 102 TFEU on the rail freight transport services market in Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2019) 6099 final of 12 August 2019 (Case AT.40459 — Rail freight forwarding in Poland — PKP Cargo);

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sped-Pro S.A;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
1.

Annuls the decision of the European Research Executive Agency (REA) of 17 January 2019 (ARES (2019) 266593), first, to the extent that the REA failed to give a decision in respect of Mr Patrick Breyer’s application for access to documents relating to the authorisation of the project iBorderCtrl and, second, to the extent that the REA refused full access to document D 1.3, partial access to documents D 1.1, D 1.2, D 2.1, D 2.2 and D 2.3 and more extensive access to documents D 3.1, D 7.3 and D 7.8, in so far as those documents contain information which is not covered by the exception referred to in Article 4(2), first indent, 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;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Design Light & Led Made in Europe and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy v Commission

(Case T-886/19) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - LED lighting sector - Patent Licensing Program - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons - No EU interest - Probability of being able to establish the existence of an infringement)

(2022/C 340/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Design Light & Led Made in Europe (Milan, Italy) and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Maresca, D. Maresca and S. Pelleriti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, C. Sjödin and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Signify Holding BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Snelders, R. Lepetska and N. Van Belle, lawyers)

Re:

By their action based under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 7805 final of 25 October 2019 rejecting their complaint concerning infringements of Articles 101 or 102 TFEU allegedly committed by Koninklijke Philips NV (Case AT.39913 — LED).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Design Light & Led Made in Europe and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy to pay the costs;

3. Orders Signify Holding BV to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission

(Case T-243/19) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor, originating in China - Definitive countervailing duties - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 - Determination of injury - Article 8(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 - Price undercutting calculation - Causal link)

(2022/C 244/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere and J. Redelbach, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2019 L 16, p. 5) in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns the applicant;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — PNB Banka v ECB

(Case T-301/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 6(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Need for the ECB’s direct supervision of a less significant credit institution - Request by the national competent authority - Article 68(5) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - ECB decision classifying PNB Banka as a significant entity subject to its direct prudential supervision - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Rights of the defence - Access to the administrative file - Report laid down in Article 68(3) of Regulation No 468/2014 - Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure - Request for a hearing lacking a statement of reasons)

(2023/C 35/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, F. Bonnard and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB), notified by letter of 1 March 2019, to classify the applicant as a significant entity subject to its direct prudential supervision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission

(Case T-744/19) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 - Article 3(1) to (3) and (5) to (8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Sales through related companies - Construction of the export price - Injury to the Union industry - Calculation of price undercutting - Causal link - Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Calculation of the injury margin - Injury elimination)

(2022/C 432/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd (Couva, Trinidad and Tobago) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers), Grupa Azoty S.A. (Tarnów, Poland), Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A. (Puławy, Poland) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (OJ 2019 L 258, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, by Achema AB, by Grupa Azoty S.A. and by Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A.

(1) OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE)

(Case T-2/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE - Earlier EU word mark BIOPLAK - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 433/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and E. Śliwińska, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 (Case R 418/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LICHTYOGA)

(Case T-157/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark LICHTYOGA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 110/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Bachmann (Bad Grönenbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2019 (Case R 2317/2019-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LICHTYOGA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gabriele Bachmann to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Forex Bank v EUIPO — Coino UK (FOREX)

(Case T-26/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FOREX - Declaration of partial invalidity - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 28/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Forex Bank AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Jute, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Coino UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 (Case R 2460/2018 2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coino UK and Forex Bank.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Forex Bank AB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — KM v Commission

(Case T-374/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Proportionality)

(2021/C 217/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: KM (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 7 October 2019, refusing the request to grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant and, second, an order that the Commission adopt a new decision and grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 7 October 2019, refusing the request to grant a survivor’s pension to KM;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by KM;

4. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ EST 1929)

(Case T-68/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ EST 1929 - Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 163/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 885/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Sweden; Covid-19)

(Case T-379/20) (1)

(State aid - Swedish air transport market - Aid granted by Sweden to an airline amid the COVID-19 pandemic - Guarantee - Decision not to raise any objections - Commitments as a condition to make the aid compatible with the internal market - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Freedom of establishment - Free provision of services - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons)

(2021/C 242/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, S. Rating, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis and V. Blanc, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat, D. Zukowska, L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, O. Simonsson and J. Lundberg, acting as Agents), SAS AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: F. Sjövall, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 2784 final of 24 April 2020 on State Aid SA.57061 (2020/N) — Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs relating to the request for confidential treatment;

3. Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and SAS AB to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Nosio v EUIPO — Tros del Beto (ACCUSÌ)

(Case T-300/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ACCUSÌ - Earlier EU word mark ACÚSTIC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 242/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer, G. Rubino and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Tros del Beto, SLU (Marçà, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 (Case R 871/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Tros del Belo and Nosio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.