ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-444/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity and revocation proceedings - EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the EU trade mark - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 215/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 522/2006-1), relating to invalidity and revocation proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Securitec v Commission

(Case T-661/18) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s offer - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Illegality of a clause in the tender specifications - Equal treatment)

(2020/C 339/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Securitec (Livange, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Peuvrel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Ilkova, A Katsimerou and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision of 7 September 2018 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant for lot No. 4 of the contract which was the subject of the restricted tender procedure HR/R1/PR/2017/059 and relating to the ‘maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg’, and second, of the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2018 to refuse to provide the applicant with the clarifications that it had requested in the context of that procedure on 11 September 2018

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 7 September 2018 to reject the tender submitted by Securitec for lot no. 4 of the contract that was the subject of restricted tender procedure HR/R1/PR/2017/059 relating to the ‘maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg’ and the decision of the Commission of 17 September 2018 to refuse to provide Securitec with the clarifications that it had requested in the context of that procedure on 11 September 2018;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 –Poland v Commission

(Case T-506/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Specific support for the tobacco sector - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Key controls - Flat-rate corrections - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 262/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, B. Włodarczyk, B. Straś and M. Wiące, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina, B. Hofstötter, M. Kaduczak and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Pharma Mar v Commission

(Case T-594/18) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Aplidin — plitidepsin - Commission decision refusing authorisation - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Scientific evaluation of the risks and benefits of a medicinal product - Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use - Objective impartiality)

(2021/C 9/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharma Mar, SA (Colmenar Viejo, Spain) (represented by: M. Merola and V. Salvatore, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 4831 final of 17 July 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) for Aplidin — plitidepsin, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 4831 final of 17 July 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, for Aplidin — plitidepsin, a medicinal product for human use;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Crédit agricole and Others v ECB

(Case T-144/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks entrusted to the ECB - Specific supervision powers of the ECB - Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital - Absence of individual examination)

(2020/C 399/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 69 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-17 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 9 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of Annex A thereto as well as paragraph 9 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-17 of the ECB of 14 February 2019 and Article 3 of the annex thereto;

2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Helbert v EUIPO

(Case T-548/18) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 - Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Composition of the selection board - Stability - Liability)

(2021/C 72/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lars Helbert (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, annulment, first, of the decision of 1 December 2017 of the selection board for Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — Administrators (AD 6) in the field of intellectual property not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list drawn up with a view to the recruitment of administrators by EUIPO and, second, of the decision of that selection board of 7 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for review in its final form following EUIPO’s decision of 8 June 2018 rejecting his complaint, and, on the other hand, compensation for the damage that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 7 March 2018, by which the selection board for Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 refused, after review, to place Mr Lars Helbert on the reserve list for the recruitment of grade AD 6 administrators in the field of intellectual property;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — VP v Cedefop

(Case T-187/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Request for renewal of a contract for an indefinite period - Decision not to renew - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Liability - Material damage - Non-material damage)

(2021/C 53/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VP (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (represented by: M. Brugia, acting as Agent, and by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for (i) annulment of Cedefop’s decision of 12 May 2017 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite period and, as far as necessary, of the decision of 1 December 2017 rejecting her complaint of 9 August 2017 against the decision of 12 May 2017 and (ii) compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 12 May 2017 not to renew VP’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

2. Annuls the decision of 1 December 2017 rejecting VP’s complaint;

3. Orders Cedefop to pay EUR 30 000 as compensation for the material damage sustained by VP;

4. Orders Cedefop to pay EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non-material damage sustained by VP;

5. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

6. Orders Cedefop to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Roland v Commission

(Case T-132/18) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 - Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty - Resumption of the proceeding which preceded the regulations declared invalid - Market economy treatment (MET) - Individual treatment (IT) - Desk analysis - Absence of a verification visit or a request for additional information - Non-reimbursement of anti-dumping duties - Legal basis - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Non-retroactivity - Proportionality - Non-discrimination - Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Previous decision-making practice - Competence of national authorities and courts)

(2021/C 297/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: S. De Knop, A. Willems and B. Natens, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Roland SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Braesch and Others v Commission

(Case T-161/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Aid for the precautionary restructuring of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena - Preliminary examination stage - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Plea of inadmissibility - Status as an interested party - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Admissibility)

(2021/C 189/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Anthony Braesch (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Trinity Investments DAC (Dublin, Ireland), Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands), Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP (Grand Cayman), Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP (Grand Cayman) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Champsaur, G. Faella and L. Prosperetti, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4690 final of 4 July 2017 on State Aid SA.47677 (2017/N) — Italy — New aid and amended restructuring plan of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Rejects the plea of inadmissibility;

2. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Nichicon Corporation v Commission

(Case T-342/18) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for aluminium electrolytic capacitors and tantalum electrolytic capacitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price coordination throughout the EEA - Concerted practice - Exchanges of sensitive business information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Restriction of competition by object - Statement of objections - Point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Single and continuous infringement - Gravity of the infringement - Public distancing - Mitigating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2021/C 471/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nichicon Corporation (Kyoto, Japan) (represented by: A. Ablasser-Neuhuber, F. Neumayr, G. Fussenegger and H. Kühnert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, T. Franchoo, C. Sjödin and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 1768 final of 21 March 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40136 — Capacitors), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nichicon Corporation to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Hernández Hernández v Council

(Case T-554/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2021/C 349/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Socorro Elizabeth Hernández Hernández (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Socorro Elizabeth Hernández Hernández to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — ABLV Bank v SRB

(Case T-280/18) (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 - Decision of the SRB not to adopt a resolution scheme - Action for annulment - Act adversely affecting a person - Interest in bringing proceedings - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility in part - Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Power of the author of the measure - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 340/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: J. De Carpentier, E. Muratori and H. Ehlers, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer, and B. Heenan, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Central Bank, (represented by: R. Ugena, A. Witte and A. Lefterov, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 23 February 2018 not to adopt resolution schemes in respect of the credit institutions ABLV Bank AS and ABLV Bank Luxembourg SA within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ABLV Bank AS to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB);

3. Orders the European Central Bank (ECB) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission

(Case T-296/18) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Air transport - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Relevant market - Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition - Commitments - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 502/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski and M. König, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Wildpanner, T. Franchoo and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker and R. Benditz, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 9118 final of 21 December 2017 (Case No COMP/M.8633 — Lufthansa / Certain Air Berlin assets) declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Orkla Foods Danmark v EUIPO (PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD)

(Case T-34/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/71)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Orkla Foods Danmark A/S (Taastrup, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2018 (Case R 309/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Orkla Foods Danmark A/S to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Karlovarské minerální vody v EUIPO — Aguas de San Martín de Veri (VERITEA)

(Case T-28/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VERITEA - Earlier EU word mark VERI - AGUA PURA DEL PIRINEO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 61/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Karlovarské minerální vody a.s. (Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Mrázek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aguas de San Martín de Veri, SA (Bisaurri, Spain) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 (Case R 499/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Aguas de San Martín de Veri and Karlovarské minerální vody.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Karlovarské minerální vody a.s. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.