ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2022 –

GEA Group v Commission

(Case T‑195/19)

(Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers – Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC – Decision amending the initial decision annulled – Decision rejecting a request for repayment of the fine – Action for annulment – Actionable measure – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Article 266(1) TFEU)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measure purely confirmatory of an existing measure – Not included – Conditions – Measure not containing any new element in relation to the existing measure – Commission decision dismissing a request seeking repayment of a paid fine – Decision not having the same content as the initial decision – Not purely confirmatory in character – Admissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 44-51)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for a vested and present interest – Assessment at the time when the action was brought – Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant – Action to prevent an unlawful act of a Union institution or body from recurring in the future – Admissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 52-58)

3. Action for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Annulment of a Commission decision amending a decision imposing a fine – Annulled decision affecting neither the imposition nor the amount of the fine provided for in the initial decision – Obligation on the Commission to repay the fine paid – None – Payment of the fine made on the basis of references to an annulled decision – Irrelevant – Breach of principle of the protection of legitimate expectation – Absence (Arts 263, fourth para., and 266(1) TFEU) (see paras 75-80, 85-91, 98-103)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2019) 283284 final of 24 January 2019 dismissing the request of the applicant seeking repayment of the fine paid under Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 – Heat stabilisers).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) 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)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measure – Acts challengeable by the author of a complaint denouncing an infringement of competition rules – Commission decision to reject the complaint – Included – Admissibility (Arts 101, 102, 105 and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 7; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 31-34)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Determination of priorities by the Commission – Commission’s duty to adopt a decision as to the existence of an infringement – None – Account to be taken of the EU interest in investigating a case – Criteria for assessment – Discretionary power of the Commission – Limits – Obligation to examine the matters of fact and of law brought to its notice by the complainant – Judicial review – Scope (Arts 101, 102 and 105(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7) (see paras 38-51, 54-56, 71, 74, 92, 99)

3. Competition – EU rules – Application by national courts – Action for compensation of the damage caused by infringements of the rules on competition (Art. 19(1) TEU; Arts 101 and 102 TFEU) (see paras 52, 53)

Operative part

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.
24

On 2 November 2018, the applicant, pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, lodged a complaint against the contested decision in which she submitted, in the first place, that the Commission had committed a manifest error of interpretation as to the reasonableness of the period of time taken by her to lodge the request for recognition of an occupational disease having regard to the fact that she was very weak in 2013 and 2014, in particular due to the deaths of her parents, that it ‘made sense’ for her first to lodge a request for assistance in order to consider the way in which her disease would be treated, and that she had been invited to medical examinations which showed that the admissibility stage had passed and that her request must consequently be processed. In the second place, she complained that the Commission had misused its powers in that it referred to the examinations alleged to have been conducted on 24 February 2018 and 15 July 2018 in order to establish the inadmissibility of the request for recognition of an occupational disease, whereas the applicant disputes having been examined on those dates. In the third place, she submitted that her rights of defence had been infringed as she should have been heard before B adopted his report on 15 July 2018. By depriving her of her right to be heard by the medical officer, she did not have the possibility of explaining to him, and ultimately to the AECE, the reasons why she had not been able to lodge her request for recognition of an occupational disease earlier. According to the applicant, the medical documents sent to A show that no question was addressed to her on that subject. In addition, she submits that the medical report by B did not contain reasons.
83

In the third place, with regard to the Commission’s argument that, in order to comply with the principle of equal treatment of scheme members, the general implementing provisions must be interpreted as setting a ceiling on the long-term hire of CPAP devices, it must be noted that, even on the assumption that there is an unjustified difference of treatment between scheme members purchasing a CPAP device and those hiring the same device over a long period, that cannot lead, for the sake of conformity with the principle of equal treatment, to an interpretation of the general implementing provisions that would be contrary to their wording or to the broad logic of the relevant provisions of the Joint Rules and the general implementing provisions (see, to that effect, order of 17 July 2015, EEB v Commission, T‑685/14, not published, EU:T:2015:560, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). The same must be said in relation to the risk of the ceiling on the purchase of a CPAP device being circumvented or the financial equilibrium of the JSIS being disrupted. What is more, the Joint Rules contain mechanisms, as can be seen, in particular, in Article 20(2) thereof, to avoid certain excessive costs being covered under the JSIS.
120

It should be noted that Fly Aman’s registration certificate of 28 May 2018 states that the founders of the undertaking are Mr Al Zoubi and company B. Furthermore, it is apparent that company B is a shareholder of Fly Aman alongside Mr Al Zoubi. However, the applicant’s name is not mentioned. Nonetheless, the first version of the articles of association of Fly Aman, dated 22 February 2018 and signed by the Syrian Companies Directorate, designates the applicant as founder and partner of Fly Aman and states that he owns 10% of the undertaking’s capital. In that regard, it should be noted that the applicant has not shown that Fly Aman’s articles of association of 22 February 2018 had not produced legal effects between that date and the date of the registration certificate of 28 May 2018, in view of the fact that the company was not formed even though its articles of association were ratified by the Syrian Companies Directorate. At the hearing, however, he confirmed that it was not a first version, but rather the definitive statutes of Fly Aman, pending registration with the Syrian Companies Directorate. Lastly, the applicant acknowledges that he has not adduced evidence of the transfer of his title to company B, designated as founding partner in the registration certificate dated 28 May 2018. It must be recalled that the applicant’s name was included on the lists at issue because of his status as founding partner of Fly Aman airline and not as a mere shareholder. In any event, the applicant contradicts himself in his pleadings, since, while disputing being a shareholder, he acknowledges that he is one by submitting that he is only a minority shareholder. Furthermore, it should be added, as regards the 2020 maintaining acts, that the evidence from the websites ‘Aliqtisadi’ and ‘Eqtsad News’, taken from document WK 3599/2020 REV 1, mention that the applicant is a founding partner of Fly Aman.
1

On 15 October 2014, the European Commission adopted Decision C(2014) 7465 final relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39523 – Slovak Telekom), rectified by Commission Decision C(2014) 10119 final of 16 December 2014, and also by Commission Decision C(2015) 2484 final of 17 April 2015 (‘the 2014 Decision’). Articles 1 and 2 of the 2014 Decision read as follows: ‘Article 1 1. The undertaking consisting of Deutsche Telekom AG and Slovak Telekom a.s. has committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 of the Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement. 2. The infringement lasted from 12 August 2005 until 31 December 2010 and consisted of the following practices: (a) withholding from alternative operators network information necessary for the unbundling of local loops; (b) reducing the scope of its obligations regarding unbundled local loops; (c) setting unfair terms and conditions in its Reference Unbundling Offer regarding collocation, qualification, forecasting, repairs and bank guarantees; (d) applying unfair tariffs which do not allow an equally efficient competitor relying on wholesale access to the unbundled local loops of Slovak Telekom a.s. to replicate the retail broadband services offered by Slovak Telekom a.s. without incurring a loss. Article 2 For the infringement referred to in Article 1, the following fines are imposed: (a) a fine of EUR 38838000 on Deutsche Telekom AG and Slovak Telekom a.s., jointly and severally; (b) a fine of EUR 31070000 on Deutsche Telekom AG. The fines shall be paid in euro within three months of the date of notification of this Decision to the following account held in the name of the European Commission: … After the expiry of that period, interest shall automatically be payable at the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations on the first day of the month in which this Decision is adopted, plus 3.5 percentage points. Where an undertaking referred to in Article 1 lodges an appeal, that undertaking shall cover the fine by the due date by either providing an acceptable bank guarantee or making a provisional payment of the fine in accordance with Article 90 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 [of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1)].’
34

As is apparent from the documents before the Court, the applicant’s legal situation is, in the present case, affected by the contested decisions without the intervention of an intermediate measure, since those decisions themselves alter the applicant’s rights to participate, as a shareholder, in the management of the bank in accordance with the applicable rules: – thus, those decisions affect the applicant’s right, as a shareholder, to elect the management and supervisory bodies of the bank, given that, in the absence of such decisions, the shareholders who, alone or together with others, hold a certain proportion of the capital may submit a list of candidates for election as members of the board of directors and the supervisory board and any shareholder may elect from among the candidates the members of those two bodies, in accordance with the statutes of the bank (Articles 18 and 26); – furthermore, the decision to place the bank under temporary administration affects the right of shareholders, such as the applicant, to convene the general meeting of shareholders and to set the agenda, given that (i) according to Article 10(4) of the bank’s statutes, the shareholders may request that a general meeting be held and put items on the agenda, (ii) in the present case that right is suspended by the contested decisions and (iii), in accordance with Article 70(2) of decreto legislativo n. 385 – Testo unico delle leggi in materia bancaria e creditizia (Legislative Decree No 385 – The Consolidated Law on banking and credit) of 1 September 1993 (Ordinary Supplement to GURI No 230 of 30 September 1993) (‘the Consolidated Law on Banking’), only temporary administrators may convene the general meeting and set the agenda, with the approval of the ECB in accordance with Article 72(6) of the Consolidated Law on Banking; – lastly, the contested decisions alter the conditions under which the managing and supervisory bodies may be held liable by shareholders, such as the applicant, given that (i) in principle governed by Article 2392 of the Italian Civil Code, their liability is limited, in the case of temporary administration, in accordance with Article 72(9) of the Consolidated Law on Banking, to cases of intentional fault, or serious misconduct, (ii) moreover, that provision provides that actions of a civil nature brought against the temporary administrators are brought subject to the ECB’s authorisation and that paragraph 5 of that article gives the temporary administrators the right to bring actions against members of the dissolved bodies of the bank or the managing director, thus depriving the meeting of the shareholders or the shareholders who together hold a certain proportion of the share capital from the right to bring such an action under Articles 2393 and 2393bis of the Italian Civil Code.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2020 –

Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)

(Case T‑118/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of packaging – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Assessment of distinctive character – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27-29, 41)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade mark consisting of the shape of packaging (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 42-44, 46-48)

5. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Registration of a new trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Burden of proof (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 95(1)) (see para. 45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2019 (Case R 978/2019-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of packaging as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2019 (Case R 978/2019-5);
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 October 2020 –

Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE)

(Case T‑2/20)

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

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16, 69, 70, 79)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE and word mark BIOPLAK (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 30, 35, 36, 49, 56, 67, 68, 71, 80)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 29)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38, 62)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Likelihood of association – Earlier marks exhibiting characteristics enabling them to be regarded as forming part of the same series or family – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 77, 78)

6. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 81)

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

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Analogous requirements with regard to grounds in support of a plea – General reference to documents annexed to the application – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 15)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Restriction of the list of goods and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal – Consequences

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 49(1))

(see paras 21-24)
2.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Degree of attention of the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 24, 30, 32)
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), second sentence)

(see paras 83, 84)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law and arguments not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see paras 28, 29)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 72(1))

(see para. 19)
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see para. 49)
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see para. 30)