ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2022 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

(Case T-610/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Slovak market for broadband telecommunications services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Judgment annulling the decision in part and reducing the amount of the fine imposed - Refusal of the Commission to pay default interest - Article 266 TFEU - Article 90(4)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012) - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Loss of use of the amount of the fine that had been unduly paid - Loss of profits - Default interest - Rates - Harm)

(2022/C 119/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: P. Linsmeier, U. Soltész, C. von Köckritz and P. Lohs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 28 June 2019 refusing to pay default interests to the applicant on the principal amount of the portion of the fine repaid following the judgment of 13 December 2018, Deutsche Telekom v Commission (T-827/14, EU:T:2018:930), and, second, application under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for lost revenue as a result of the loss of use of that principal amount or, in the alternative, for the harm resulting from the Commission’s refusal to pay default interest on that amount.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European Commission to pay Deutsche Telekom AG compensation in the amount of EUR 1 750 522,83 for the harm suffered;

2. The compensation referred to in point 1 shall be increased by default interest, starting from the date of delivery of the present judgment and continuing until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points;

3. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 28 June 2019 refusing to pay default interest to Deutsche Telekom for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019 on the principal amount of the fine repaid following the judgment of 13 December 2018, Deutsche Telekom v Commission (T-827/14, EU:T:2018:930);

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Deutsche Telekom;

6. Orders Deutsche to bear half of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament

(Case T-388/19) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Members of the European Parliament - Refusal of the President of the Parliament to recognise the status of Member of the European Parliament and the associated rights of elected candidates - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 340/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, G. Boye, S. Bekaert, lawyers, and by B. Emmerson QC)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lukácsi and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of, first, the Instruction of 29 May 2019 of the President of the European Parliament refusing them access to the special welcome and assistance service offered to incoming Members of the European Parliament and the grant of temporary accreditation and, second, the refusal of the President of the Parliament to recognise their status as Members of the European Parliament, contained in the letter of 27 June 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Mr Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Mr Antoni Comín i Oliveres to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including the costs in Cases T-388/19 R, C-646/19 P(R) and T-388/19 R-RENV;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — PNB Banka v ECB

(Case T-330/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 22 of Directive 2013/36/EU - Opposition of the ECB to the acquisition of qualifying holdings in a credit institution - Starting point of the assessment period - Intervention by the ECB during the initial stage of the procedure - Criteria of financial stability of the proposed acquirer and compliance with prudential requirements - Existence of reasonable grounds for opposing the acquisition on the basis of one or more assessment criteria - Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure - Request for a hearing without a statement of reasons)

(2023/C 35/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision, notified by letter of 21 March 2019, by which the European Central Bank (ECB) decided to oppose the transaction consisting of the acquisition of qualifying holdings in B.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Malacalza Investimenti v ECB

(Case T-552/19 OP) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - ECB’s decision to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information protected as such under EU law - General presumption of confidentiality - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person, including intellectual property - Meaning of confidential information - Obligation to state reasons - Opposition)

(2022/C 463/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant in the main proceedings: Malacalza Investimenti Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: P. Ghiglione, E. De Giorgi, L. Amicarelli and S. Casini, lawyers)

Defendant in the main proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: A. Riso, F. von Lindeiner and M. Van Hoecke, acting as Agents, and by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and O. Pollicino, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 166(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the European Central Bank (ECB) applies to have set aside the judgment of 25 June 2020, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB (T-552/19, EU:T:2020:294), which annulled ECB Decision LS/LdG/19/185 of 12 June 2019 refusing to grant access to the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and other documents relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application to have set aside the judgment of 25 June 2020, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB, T-552/19, EU:T:2020:294, delivered by default, which annulled the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 refusing access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and to other documents relating thereto and, consequently, confirms the annulment of the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 set out in the judgment by default;

2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2020 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a stylised horn)

(Case T-25/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a stylised horn - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a post horn on a yellow background - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Lack of distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 9/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pošta Slovenije d.o.o. (Maribor, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Kavčič and R. Jerovšek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2019 (Case R 994/2019 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post and Pošta Slovenije.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — mysuperbrand (medical beauty research)

(Case T-98/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark medical beauty research - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Consideration of the facts - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 110/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Biochange Group GmbH (Bad Schlema, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: mysuperbrand GmbH, formerly Laubender GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Woller, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 (Case R 114/2019-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Laubender and Biochange Group.

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 8 November 2019 (Case R 114/2019-2) as regards ‘baby food’ in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Biochange Group GmbH, EUIPO and mysuperbrand GmbH each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Group v EUIPO — Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)

(Case T-57/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL - Earlier unregistered national figurative marks GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 28/72)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Group EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Dragiev and A. Andreev, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Kosta Iliev (Sofia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 (Case R 2059/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Group and Mr Iliev.

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 8 November 2019 (Case R 2059/2018-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Creaton South-East Europe v EUIPO — Henkel (CREATHERM)

(Case T-168/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CREATHERM - Earlier international word mark CERETHERM - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 217/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Creaton South-East Europe Kft. (Lenti, Hungary) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 (Case R 1090/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel and Creaton South-East Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Creaton South-East Europe Kft. to pay the costs.

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

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

(Case T-67/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 163/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 886/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Freistaat Bayern v EUIPO (GEWÜRZSOMMELIER)

(Case T-348/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 242/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Freistaat Bayern (Germany) (represented by: V. Lehmann, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2020 (Case R 2430/2019-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign GEWÜRZSOMMELIER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Freistaat Bayern to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX)

(Case T-310/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark JUMEX - Earlier EU figurative mark zumex - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 242/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Comercializadora Eloro, SA (Ecatepec, Mexico) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, P. Merino Baylos and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zumex Group, SA (Moncada, Spain) (represented by: M. C. March Cabrelles, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 534/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Zumex Group and Comercializadora Eloro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Comercializadora Eloro, SA to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Zumex Group, SA.

(1) OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — Magnetec v EUIPO (CoolTUBE)

(Case T-481/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark CoolTUBE - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 310/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Magnetec — Gesellschaft für Magnettechnologie mbH (Langenselbold, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 (Case R 1755/2019-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CoolTUBE as an EU trade mark.

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 15 May 2020 (Case R 1755/2019-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Magnetec — Gesellschaft für Magnettechnologie mbH, including the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Schneider v EUIPO — Raths (Teslaplatte)

(Case T-183/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Teslaplatte - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 278/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Christian Schneider (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: R. Buttron, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Oliver Raths (Männedorf, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Jacobs and M. Maybaum, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 (Case R 247/2019-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Raths and Mr Schneider.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Christian Schneider to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Arbuzov v Council

(Case T-267/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation of the Council to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 329/30)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: V. Rytikov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Pekař and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Sergej Arbuzov was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-269/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State respected the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 329/32)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Pekař and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
1.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 60 499,38 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid for April 2010, for the days not corresponding to the missions accepted by the Secretary General of the Parliament, and the period from 29 to 31 March 2011;