ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Santini and Others v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-345/19, T-346/19, T-364/19 to T-366/19, T-372/19 to T-375/19, and T-385/19) (1)

(Institutional law - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies - Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Resolution No 14/2018, on pensions - Alteration of the amount of the pensions of Italian national Members of Parliament - Corresponding alteration by the European Parliament of the amount of the pensions of certain former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy - Competence of the author of the act - Obligation to state reasons - Acquired rights - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Non-contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2021/C 128/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Giacomo Santini (Trento, Italy) and the nine other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letters of 11 April 2019, as well as, in respect of the applicant in Case T-375/19, the letter of 8 May 2019, drawn up, in the case of each applicant, by the Parliament and concerning the adjustment of the amount of the pensions received by the applicants following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Resolution No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of those measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Mr Giacomo Santini and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Al Tarazi v Council

(Case T-260/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Rights of defence - Right to property - Right to exercise an economic activity - Right to respect for private and family life - Proportionality)

(2021/C 242/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mazen Al Tarazi (Shuwaikh, Kuwait) (represented by: G. Beck, A. Khan, R. Wilcox, Barristers, and S. Patel, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4) in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Mazen Al-Tarazi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Sharif v Council

(Case T-540/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to exercise an economic activity)

(2021/C 242/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ammar Sharif (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle, L. Cloquet and J. Kobeissi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, J. Norris and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those measures relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Ammar Sharif to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-302/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to 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 was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 297/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint-Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, R. Kiddell, Solicitors, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič, A. Vitro and T. Haas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, 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) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 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) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 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 Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych 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 238, 15.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Franz Schröder v EUIPO — RDS Design (MONTANA)

(Case T-855/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark MONTANA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Admission of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 278/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark) (represented by: J. Viinberg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 (Case R 1006/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Franz Schröder and RDS Design.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders RDS Design ApS to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission

(Case T-680/19) (1)

(State aid - Energy sector - Irish legislation on business property taxation - Method for calculating the amount of the tax owed by fossil fuel electricity producers - Complaint from wind farm operators - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of the interested parties)

(2021/C 338/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg (Kilkenny, Ireland), Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Shanagolden, Ireland), Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Bunclody, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 5257 final of 9 July 2019 on State aid SA.44671 (2019/NN) — Ireland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — CE v Committee of the Regions

(Case T-355/19) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Article 2(c) of the CEOS - Contract of indefinite duration - Early termination with notice - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Terms of notice - Abuse of process - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment)

(2021/C 310/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CE (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions (represented by: S. Bachotet and M. Esparrago Arzadun, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 16 April 2019 by which the Committee of the Regions terminated the applicant’s employment contract and, in the alternative, annulment of the letter of 16 May 2019 by which it extended the date until which the applicant could recover her personal effects and access her e-mail during the period of notice and, second, compensation for the loss of the applicant’s personal effects and access to her e-mail, and, second, for compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 16 April 2019 terminating CE’s employment contract as regards the specific arrangements for giving notice;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Albéa Services v EUIPO — dm-drogerie markt (ALBÉA)

(Case T-852/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ALBÉA - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Word mark Balea - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctiveness of the earlier international registration designating the European Union - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 452/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Albéa Services (Gennevilliers, France) (represented by: J.-H. de Mitry, 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: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2019 (Case R 1480/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt and Albéa Services.

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 23 September 2019 (Case R 1480/2019-2) to the extent that it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division, except in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division as regards ‘cosmetics’ in Class 3;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Albéa Services;

4. Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission

(Case T-716/19) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine - Interim review - Calculation of the normal value - Selling, general and administrative costs - Sales between related companies - Ordinary course of trade - Single economic entity - Article 2(3), (4) and (6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Export price - Adjustment - Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis - Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Manifest error of assessment - Methodology different from that used in a previous investigation - Article 11(9) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Legitimate expectations - Rights of the defence)

(2021/C 357/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Interpipe Niko Tube LLC (Nikopol, Ukraine), Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant OJSC (Dnipro, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1295 of 1 August 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (OJ 2019 L 204, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Interpipe Niko Tube LLC and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant OJSC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-495/19) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European citizen’s initiative - Cohesion policy - National minority regions - Registration decision - Action for annulment - Actionable measure - Admissibility - Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 11/29)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, R. Haţieganu, L. Liţu and L.-E. Baţagoi, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Stancu, I. Martínez del Peral and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, M. Tátrai and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721 of 30 April 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures’ (OJ 2019 L 122, p. 55).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

3. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — AlzChem Group v Commission

(Case T-569/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for the recovery of State aid following a decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Principle of non-discrimination - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 471/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AlzChem Group AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Borsos and J. Guerrero Pérez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 5602 final of 22 July 2019 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the procedure for the recovery of State aid following a decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AlzChem Group AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission

(Case T-652/19) (1)

(Public procurement - Financial regulation - Exclusion from procurement and grant-award procedures covered by the EDF for a three-year period - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2022/C 128/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Elevolution — Engenharia, SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Mendes, R. Campos, A. Dias Henriques, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. García Fernández, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I Melo Sampaio, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 12 July 2019 excluding the applicant for three years from participating in procurement and grant-award procedures financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) and concerning the publication of information relating to that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Elevolution — Engenharia, SA to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

(Case T-595/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI BURGER - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No detriment to repute - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 73/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden) (represented by: P. Nihlmark and L. Zacharoff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2019 (Case R 1356/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2022 — Wieland-Werke v Commission

(Case T-251/19) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Market for rolled products and pre-rolled strip made of copper and copper alloys - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Relevant market - Assessment of the horizontal and vertical effects of the transaction on competition - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of good administration - Rights of the defence)

(2022/C 284/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, C. von Köckritz and K. Winkelmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Berghe, A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, M. Farley and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 922 final of 5 February 2019 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8900 — Wieland/Aurubis Rolled Products/Schwermetall).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wieland-Werke AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — VeriGraft v Eismea

(Case T-688/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Termination of the agreement - Misconduct - Capacity as beneficiary of the grant or as a natural person acting in his or her name or on his or her behalf)

(2022/C 191/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VeriGraft AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Hansson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (represented by: A. Galea, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration of invalidity of the termination by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) of the grant agreement concerning the project ‘Personalised Tissue Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P TEV’, concluded in the context of the instrument to support innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises of Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the termination by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises of the grant agreement for the project ‘Personalised Tissue Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P-TEV’, bearing reference 778620, is invalid;

2. Orders the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.