ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/29

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Repsol YPF v EUIPO — Basic (BASIC)

(Case T-609/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark BASIC - Earlier national trade names basic and basic AG - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, and subsequently by J. Erdozain López, lawyers)

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: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg and H. Bickel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Basic Lebensmittelhandel and Repsol, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Repsol YPF, SA;

3. Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/20

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2017 — JT v EUIPO — Carrasco Pirard (QUILAPAYÚN)

(Case T-249/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark QUILAPAYÚN - Relative ground for refusal - Well-known mark - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proprietor of the mark))

(2018/C 032/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: JT (represented by: A. Mena Valenzuela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eduardo Carrasco Pirard (Santiago, Chili) and the 7 other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO whose names are listed in the Annex to the judgment

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2015 (Case R 354/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, JT, and, on the other, Mr Carrasco Pirard and the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal whose names are listed in the Annex.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 March 2015 (Case R 354/2014-2);

2. Dismisses the remaining heads of claim in the application;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/26

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2017 — Icap and Others v Commission

(Case T-180/15) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Yen interest rate derivatives sector - Decision finding six infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Manipulation of the JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR interbank reference rates - Restriction of competition by object - Participation of a broker in the infringements - ‘Hybrid’ settlement procedure - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Principle of sound administration - Fines - Basic amount - Exceptional adjustment - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 005/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Icap plc (London, United Kingdom), Icap Management Services Ltd (London) and Icap New Zealand Ltd (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: C. Riis-Madsen and S. Frank, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, B. Mongin and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 432 final of 4 February 2015 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(a) of European Commission Decision C(2015) 432 final of 4 February 2015 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives), inasmuch as it relates to the period after 22 August 2007;

2. Annuls Article 1(b) of Decision C(2015) 432 final;

3. Annuls Article 1(d) of Decision C(2015) 432 final inasmuch as it relates to the period from 5 March to 27 April 2010;

4. Annuls Article 1(e) of Decision C(2015) 432 final inasmuch as it relates to the period prior to 18 May 2010;

5. Annuls Article 1(f) of Decision C(2015) 432 final inasmuch as it relates to the period prior to 18 May 2010;

6. Annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2015) 432 final;

7. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

8. Orders Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd and Icap New Zealand Ltd to bear one quarter of their own costs;

9. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of Icap, Icap Management Services and Icap New Zealand.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/18

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Gramberg v EUIPO — Mahdavi Sabet (Case for a mobile phone)

(Case T-166/15) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a case for a mobile phone - Disclosure of the design - Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court))

(2018/C 134/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Claus Gramberg (Essen, Germany) (represented: initially by S. Kettler, and subsequently by F. Klopmeier and G. Becker, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sorouch Mahdavi Sabet (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 January 2015 (Case R 460/2013-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Gramberg and Mr Mahdavi Sabet.

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 13 January 2015 (Case R 460/2013-3);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Claus Gramberg, including the expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/17

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 – Gyarmathy v FRA

(Case T-196/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of an application - Selection procedure - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Duty to provide reasons - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal))

(2018/C 094/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: A. Cech, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: C. Manolopoulos, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015, Gyarmathy v FRA (F 97/13, EU:F:2015:7), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Ms Valéria Anna Gyarmathy to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Case T-616/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Transtec v Commission (EDF — ACP countries — The Cotonou Agreement — Support programme for cultural initiatives in Portuguese-speaking African countries — Sums paid by the Commission to the body entrusted with the financial implementation of the programme in Guinea-Bissau — Recovery following a financial audit — Offsetting of debts — Proportionality — Unjust enrichment — Non-contractual liability)

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Transtec v Commission

(Case T-616/15) ( 1 )

‛(EDF — ACP countries — The Cotonou Agreement — Support programme for cultural initiatives in Portuguese-speaking African countries — Sums paid by the Commission to the body entrusted with the financial implementation of the programme in Guinea-Bissau — Recovery following a financial audit — Offsetting of debts — Proportionality — Unjust enrichment — Non-contractual liability)’

Parties

Applicant: Transtec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Aresu and S. Bartelt, and subsequently A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the set-off decisions contained in the Commission’s letters of 27 August and 7, 16, 23 and 25 September 2015, seeking to recover the sum of EUR 624388,73, corresponding to the amount of part of the advance paid to the applicant in the context of a support programme for cultural initiatives in Guinea-Bissau, financed by the ninth European Development Fund (EDF), plus late-payment interest, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking recovery of sums allegedly linked to unjust enrichment, as well as compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls, in part, the set-off decisions contained in the Commission’s letters of 27 August and 7, 16, 23 and 25 September 2015, seeking to recover the sum of EUR 624388,73, corresponding to the amount of part of the advance paid to the applicant in the context of a support programme for cultural initiatives in Guinea-Bissau, financed by the ninth European Development Fund (EDF), plus late-payment interest, to the extent that they seek to recover the amount of EUR 312265,42, corresponding to the amount of ineligible expenses identified by financial finding No 2 of EDF’s audit report 2007/20859 concerning the operational programme estimate and the closure programme estimate reference FED/2010/249-005;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission and Transtec to each bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/23

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission

(Case T-675/15) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Normal value - Selection of the appropriate third country - Adjustments - Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Calculation of the dumping margin - Adjustments - Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Injury - Causal link))

(2018/C 190/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (Taiyuan, China) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l’Acier, ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, Barristers, and C. Van Haute, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-165/15) (1)

((State aid - Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))

(2019/C 82/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 109).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — RFA International v Commission

(Case T-113/15) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia - Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the normal value and the export price - Single economic entity - Reflection of the anti-dumping duty in resale prices in the European Union - Application of a methodology different from that used in an earlier investigation - Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) and (10) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) and (10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Article 18.3.1 of the WTO anti-dumping agreement))

(2019/C 25/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in whole or in part of Commission Implementing Decisions C(2014) 9805 final, C(2014) 9806 final, C(2014) 9807 final, C(2014) 9808 final, C(2014) 9811 final, C(2014) 9812 final and C(2014) 9816 final of 18 December 2014 concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders RFA International, LP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Italmobiliaire and Others v Commission

(Case T-523/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Conditions for the granting of immunity - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Sales value - Ceiling for the fine - Length of the administrative procedure - Reasonable period of time - Ability to pay)

(2019/C 295/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Italmobiliaire SpA (Milan, Italy) and the six other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and A. Bardanzellu, and subsequently by M. Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Biolan, F. Jimeno Fernández and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail Food Packaging) or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fined imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Italmobiliaire SpA and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2019 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

(Case T-492/15) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Measures implemented by Germany in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport and airlines using that airport - Decision regarding the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport - Lack of individual concern - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 187/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) (represented by: Professor C. Koenig) and Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Objet

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/789 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.21121 (C29/08) (ex NN 54/07) implemented by Germany concerning the financing of Frankfurt Hahn airport and the financial relations between the airport and Ryanair (OJ 2016 L 134, p. 46).

Order

1) The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2) Deutsche Lufthansa AG is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Jenkinson v Council and Others

(Case T-602/15 RENV) (1)

(Arbitration clause - International civilian staff of EU international missions - Recruitment on a contractual basis - Consecutive fixed-term contracts - Claim that all the contractual relationships should be recategorised as a ‘contract of indefinite duration’ - Action for contractual liability - Action for non-contractual liability)

(2022/C 11/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Liam Jenkinson (Killarney, Ireland) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, D. Bianchi and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spáč and E. Orgován, acting as Agents), Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo) (represented by: E. Raoult, lawyer)

Re:

Principally, first, an application pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, to have all of the applicant’s employment contracts recategorised as an employment contract of indeterminate duration and, on the other hand, to obtain compensation for the contractual loss that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result and, second, applications under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU seeking to establish the non-contractual liability of the Council, the Commission, the EEAS and the Eulex Kosovo Mission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Eulex Kosovo Mission to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice, in Case C-43/17 P, and relating to the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-602/15, as of the point at which they respectively raised objections of inadmissibility by separate documents in Case T-602/15;

3. Orders Liam Jenkinson to bear the costs of the proceedings referred back to the General Court, in Case T-602/15 RENV, including those relating to the lodging of the application and to pay those incurred by the defendants in connection with those proceedings.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — LL v Parliament

(Case T-615/15 RENV) (1)

(Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Limitation)

(2019/C 406/26)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: LL (represented by: J. Petrulionis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by G. Corstens and S. Toliušis, and subsequently by S. Toliušis, N. Lorenz and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of decision D(2014) 1553 of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 17 April 2014 concerning the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 37 728 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance and of the debit note of 5 May 2014 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LL to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-615/15, and in the present proceedings on referral, in Case T-615/15 RENV;

3. Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by LL in the appeal proceedings, in Case C-326/16 P.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/48

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Apax Partners v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX)

(Case T-58/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark APAX - Earlier international word mark APAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 030/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apax Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Warner and J. Curry, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Apax Partners Midmarket (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Moyou Joly, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Case R 1441/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Apax Partners Midmarket and Apax Partners.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders APAX Partners LLP to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by APAX Partners Midmarket, for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.