ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — TN v ENISA

(Case T-461/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Head of Unit post - Inclusion on the reserve list - Acceptance of the offer of employment - Withdrawal of the offer of employment - Conditions of employment - Character references - Article 12 of the CEOS - Manifest error of assessment - Processing of personal data - Right to be heard - Liability))

(2019/C 103/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TN (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of 25 November 2016 by which ENISA withdrew the offer of employment made to the applicant for the position of Head of the Administrative Services Unit, as well as the annulment of the decision of 20 April 2017 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, an order that ENISA pay compensation for the material and non-material loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result, inter alia, of the unlawful withdrawal of that offer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TN to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY)

(Case T-785/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY - Earlier word mark SAM - Relative ground for refusal - Extinction of rights due to acquiescence - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court - Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ercan Ilhan (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: S. Can, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Time Gate GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 (Case R 974/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Time Gate and Mr Ilhan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Ercan Ilhan to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Boshab and Others v Council

(Case T-582/17) (1)

(Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources and to the prohibition of entry and transit - Inclusion of the names of the applicants on the list - Rights of defence - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 164/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented: initially by P. Chansay Wilmotte, A. Kalambay Ndaya and P. Okito Omole, and subsequently by T. Bontinck, M. Forgeois, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Veiga and B. Driessen, and subsequently by B. Driessen and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/904 of 29 May 2017 implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 138 I, p. 1), and of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/905 of 29 May 2017 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 138 I, p. 6), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Évariste Boshab and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — L v Parliament

(Case T-91/17) (1)

(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Sick leave - Sick leave spent elsewhere than at the place of employment - Unauthorised absence - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Principle of good administration)

(2019/C 131/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 31 August 2016 concerning unauthorised absences of the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders L to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Aldridge and Others v Commission

(Case T-319/17) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - OLAF - Contract for an indefinite period - Decision of the Director of OLAF establishing a one-off reclassification to the next higher grade - Request for an annual reclassification procedure to be launched - Measure of a general nature - Time-limit for bringing an action - Point from which time stars to run - Publication on the intranet - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 187/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Adam Aldridge (Schaerbeek, Belgium) and the 32 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon and M. Mensi, then L. Radu Bouyon and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) dated 15 July 2016 rejecting the applicants’ request seeking the implementation of an annual reclassification procedure and of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF dated 13 February 2017 rejecting the complaint brought against the decision dated 15 July 2016 and, secondly, the payment of compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Declares that Mr Adam Aldridge and the other members of the temporary staff and former members of the temporary staff of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) whose names are set out in the annex are to bear their own costs and orders them to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — TK v Parliament

(Case T-446/17) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary agents - Change in the activities assigned - Concept of concern - Invitation to an interview - Concept of proceedings - Allegation of psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2019/C 148/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially E. Taneva and M. Rantala, acting as Agents, then E. Taneva, C. González Argüelles and D. Boytha, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 26 August 2016 rejecting the applicant’s requests of 28 April 2016 and compensation for non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as well as annulment of the decision of the General Secretary of the Parliament of 26 April 2017, in so far as it rejects the application for compensation of non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant, and compensation for that damage.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders TK to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Negru v EUIPO — Sky (SkyPrivate)

(Case T-837/17) (1)

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

(2019/C 238/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alexandru Negru (Iași, Romania) (represented by: initially I.-M. Iliescu, and subsequently by T. Protopopescu, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky Ltd, formerly Sky plc, (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by K. Saliger, Solicitor, and P. Roberts QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 October 2017 (Case R 349/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and Mr Negru.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Alexandru Negru to pay the costs, including those incurred by Sky Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) v Commission

(Case T-754/17) (1)

(State aid - General corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by France in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid - Concept of economic activity - Services of general interest - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment)

(2019/C 220/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) (Brest, France) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2116 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38398 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by France — Taxation of ports in France (OJ 2017, L 332, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-20/17) (1)

(State aid - Hungarian tax on the turnover from the broadcasting or publication of advertisements - Progressivity of tax rates - Deduction from the basis of assessment of the tax of 50 % of the losses carried forward for companies not generating a profit in 2013 - Decision characterising the measures as aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Condition relating to selectivity)

(2019/C 288/57)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.-Z. Fehér, G. Koós and E.-Zs. Tóth, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and A. Kramarczyk-Szaładzińska, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/329 of 4 November 2016 on the measure SA.39235 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the taxation of advertisement turnover (OJ 2017 L 49, p. 36).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/329 of 4 November 2016 on the measure SA.39235 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the taxation of advertisement turnover;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hungary, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

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

(1) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — TO v EEA

(Case T-462/17) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Contract for a fixed period - Dismissal during sick leave - Article 16 of the CEOS - Article 48(b) of the CEOS - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Processing of personal data - Article 84 of the CEOS - Psychological harassment)

(2019/C 263/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TO (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency (represented by: O. Cornu, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, D. Nessaf and J. Van Pottelberge, and subsequently, J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents) and the Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, annulment, first, of the decision of the Executive Director of the EEA of 22 September 2016 terminating the applicant’s employment as a member of the contract staff and, secondly, that director’s decision of 20 April 2017 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 22 September 2016 and, on the other hand, compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Executive Director of the European Environmental Agency (EEA) of 22 September 2016 terminating TO’s employment as a member of the contract staff;

2. Orders the EEA to pay to TO a sum equal to one month’s salary in lieu of notice and to one third of TO’s basic salary per month of probation completed, less the dismissal allowance already received by TO;

3. Orders EEA to pay to TO an amount of EUR 6 000;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the action

5. Orders the EEA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by TO;

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

(1) OJ C 347 of 16.10.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2019 — Lithuania v Commission

(Affaire T-603/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Axis 4 ‘Leader’ - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Administrative checks - Obligation to implement a suitable system for evaluating the reasonableness of the costs - Contribution in kind in the form of unpaid voluntary work - Contribution in kind in the form of a contribution of immovable property - On-the-spot checks - Presence of documents supporting payment claims - Implementation of operations financed in accordance with the rules on public procurement)

(2019/C 357/35)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented: initially by D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, R. Dzikovič and M. Palionis, then by R. Krasuckaitė, R. Dzikovič, M. Palionis, I. Javičienė and T. Lozoraitis and lastly R. Dzikovič, M. Palionis, I. Javičienė and T. Lozoraitis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 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 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)

(Case T-773/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Café del Mar - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 305/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Café del Mar, SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Josep de sa Talaia, Spain) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1542/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González and, on the other, Mr Guiral Broto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1542/2015-5).

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar SC, Mr José Les Viamonte and Mr Carlos Andrea González in the proceedings before the General Court.

3. Orders Mr Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-391/17) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Protection of national and linguistic minorities - Strengthening of cultural and linguistic diversity - Registration in part - Principle of conferral - Commission not manifestly lacking legislative powers - Obligation to state reasons - Article 5(2) TEU - Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 296 TFEU)

(2019/C 413/50)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented initially by: R. Radu, C.-M. Florescu, E. Gane and L. Lițu, and subsequently by Florescu, Gane, Lițu and C.-R. Canțăr, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, L. Radu Bouyon and H. Stancu, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and G. Tornyai, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/652 of 29 March 2017 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (OJ 2017 L 92, p. 100).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Romania to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the interim proceedings;

3. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 —Barata v Parliament

(Case T-467/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Selection procedure for contract staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016 - Drivers - Practical and theoretical tests organised following the establishment of a database - Failure in the theoretical test - Annulment of the call for expressions of interest and voiding of the database - Action which has become devoid of purpose - Continuing interest in bringing proceedings - No need, in part, to adjudicate - Inadmissibility in part)

(2019/C 406/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Manuel Henriques Barata (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele, I. Terwinghe and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016, issued by the Parliament for the recruitment of drivers, and of various acts adopted by the Parliament in connection with that selection procedure, including, in particular, the decision of 26 October 2016 informing the applicant that he was not among the candidates selected for a post as a driver and the decision of 25 April 2017 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the request for annulment of the call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016, of the decision of 26 October 2016 informing Mr Carlos Manuel Henriques Barata that he was not among the candidates selected for a post as a driver, and of the decision of 25 April 2017 rejecting the complaint lodged by Mr Barata against that decision;

2. Declares that there is also no longer any need to adjudicate on the request for a declaration that the call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016 does not apply to Mr Barata;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action as inadmissible;

4. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Barata.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017