ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/21

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council

(Case T-160/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Whether directly concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Legal safeguards as referred to in Article 215(3) TFEU - Legal certainty - Non-arbitrariness - Breach of fundamental rights))

(2016/C 251/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented initially by S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla, Z. Burbeza, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley and G. Beck, Barristers, and subsequently by S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, Z. Burbeza, A. Meskarian, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley and G. Beck)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, L. Christie and C. Brodie, and subsequently by C. Brodie and V. Kaye, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), or annulment of that provision in so far as it does not provide for an exception that applies in the applicant’s case, and for a declaration that Article 1(6) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) is inapplicable.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bank Mellat to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/30

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italian International Film v EACEA

(Case T-676/13) (1)

((Support programme for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) - Measures of support for the transnational distribution of European films - Call for proposals in connection with the ‘selective’ scheme 2013 - EACEA act informing the applicant of the rejection of its application for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ - EACEA act confirming the rejection but stating new reasons - Powers - Distribution of tasks between the Commission and the EACEA - Circumscribed powers - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Permanent Guidelines 2012-2013 - Material or physical distribution agreement - Not communicated in advance to the EACEA - Application not eligible))

(2016/C 106/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian International Film Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, B. Bettelli and M. Bottino, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and D. Homann, acting as Agents, and D. Fosselard and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for a grant for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ following call for proposals EACEA/21/12 MEDIA 2007 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — the ‘Selective’ scheme 2013 (OJ 2012 C 300, p. 5), published pursuant to Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) (OJ 2006 L 327, p. 12) for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Italian International Film Srl and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/22

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission

(Case T-471/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Duration of the Commission’s investigation - Rights of the defence - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis))

(2016/C 392/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), and Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC (Florham Park, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: D. Hull, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS and Alpharma LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/27

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — Al Matri v Council

(Case T-545/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of public funds and associated persons and entities - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Inadequate factual basis - Error of fact - Error of law - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Proportionality - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 305/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: M. Lester and B. Kennelly, Barristers, and G. Martin, Solicitor,)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62), implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 52), by Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 38) and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/157 of 30 January 2015 (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 29), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 1), implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 735/2013 of 30 July 2013 (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 23), by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 2) and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 147/2015 of 30 January 2015 (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 3), in so far as those acts apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
Case T-584/13: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — BASF Agro and Others v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance fipronil — Review of approval — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Prohibition of the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the active substance in question — Article 49(2) of Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle — Impact assessment)

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — BASF Agro and Others v Commission

(Case T-584/13) ( 1 )

‛(Plant protection products — Active substance fipronil — Review of approval — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Prohibition of the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the active substance in question — Article 49(2) of Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle — Impact assessment)’

Parties

Applicants: BASF Agro BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) and the six other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. de Seze and É. Mullier, lawyers, and D. Abrahams, Barrister), European Seed Association (ESA) (Brussels) (represented initially by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, and subsequently by P. de Jong, K. Claeyé and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV (Soltau, Germany), Österreichischer Erwerbsimkerbund (Großebersdorf, Austria), Österreichischer Imkerbund (ÖIB) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Willand and B. Tschida, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 781/2013 of 14 August 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance fipronil, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing this active substance (OJ 2013 L 219, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 781/2013 of 14 August 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance fipronil, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing this active substance;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BASF Agro BV and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex, as well as those incurred by the Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA) and the European Seed Association (ESA);

4. Orders Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV, Österreichischer Erwerbsimkerbund and Österreichischer Imkerbund (ÖIB) to bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/24

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — TestBioTech and Others v Commission

(Case T-177/13) (1)

((Environment - Genetically modified products - Genetically modified soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 - Request for internal review of the decision on marketing authorisation dismissed as unfounded - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 038/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany), European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV (Braunschweig, Germany), Sambucus eV (Vahlde, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, QC, and J. Stevenson, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Cattabriga and P. Oliver, and subsequently by P. Cattabriga and L. Flynn and, lastly, by C. Cattabriga, L. Flynn and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by E. Jenkinson and L. Christie, and subsequently by L. Christie and, lastly, by S. Brandon, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents) and Monsanto Europe (Antwerp, Belgium) and Monsanto Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Pittie, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2013, concerning the review of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/347/EU of 28 June 2012 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 (MON-877Ø1-2 x MON-89788-1), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2012 L 171, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV and Sambucus eV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Monsanto Europe and Monsanto Company to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM (Pianissimo)

(Case T-11/14) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Pianissimo - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)

(2015/C 073/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2013 (Case R 441/2013-4), confirming rejection of the application for registration of the word sign Pianissimo as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/14

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval-Vinhos (Wine in Black)

(Case T-420/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Wine in Black - Earlier Community word mark NOVAL BLACK - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 221/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wine in Black GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Bauer and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M.L. Vuijst and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA (Pinhão, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA and Wine in Black GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013-1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/37

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Tecalan v OHIM — Ensinger (TECALAN)

(Case T-100/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TECALAN - Earlier Community word mark TECADUR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 198/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Tecalan GmbH (Grünberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Holthaus, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ensinger GmbH (Nufringen, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2013 (Case R 2308/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Ensinger GmbH and Tecalan GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tecalan GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/29

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Inditex v OHIM — Ansell (ZARA)

(Case T-584/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Proceedings for revocation - Community word mark ZARA - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 346/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell (Moshi, Tanzania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1118/2013-2), relating to proceedings for revocation between Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell, on one hand, and Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex), on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/23

Judgment of the General Court of 17 June 2015 — BMV Mineralöl v OHIM — Delek Europe (GO)

(Case T-60/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GO - Earlier Community figurative mark GO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 262/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. von Fuchs and I. Czernik, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Delek Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 382/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH and Delek Europe BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/38

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO organic)

(Case T-610/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO organic - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 301/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO organic as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/33

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET)

(Case T-321/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark STREET - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2014 (Case R 2025/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign STREET as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/54

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (DetergentOptimiser)

(Case T-707/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark DetergentOptimiser - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment))

(2015/C 389/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter and M. Neuner, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2014 (case R 172/2014-1), relating to an application for the word mark DetergentOptimiser as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.