ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Cerafogli v ECB

(Case T-483/16 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Complaint of discrimination and psychological harassment - Internal administrative inquiry - Rejection of the complaint - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Right to be heard - Request for access to the minutes of the hearings of witnesses - Destruction of the inquiry file - Probative character of the evidence submitted to the Court - Incomplete examination - Psychological harassment - Error of law - Duty to provide assistance - Responsibility - Causal link - Non-material damage)

(2020/C 230/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Feyerbacher and B. Ehlers, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and under Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the ECB of 24 November 2009 concluding the internal administrative inquiry opened following the applicant’s complaint of discrimination and an attack on her dignity constituting psychological harassment and an infringement of the ECB Dignity at Work policy and, if necessary, of the decision of the ECB of 24 March 2010 rejecting her special appeal and, second, an order requiring the ECB to pay her compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 24 November 2009 closing the internal administrative inquiry opened following the complaint by Ms Maria Concetta Cerafogli and annuls the decision of the ECB of 24 March 2010 dismissing the special appeal brought by Ms Cerafogli;

2. Orders the ECB to pay to Ms Cerafogli the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of damages;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the ECB to bear, in addition to its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Cerafogli relating to the initial proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal in respect of the action in Case F-43/10, the appeal proceedings in Case T-114/13 P and the present referral proceedings in Case T-483/16 RENV;

5. Orders Ms Cerafogli to bear one third of her own costs relating to the initial proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal in respect of the action in Case F-43/10, the appeal proceedings in Case T-114/13 P and the present referral proceedings in Case T-483/16 RENV.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-43/10 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016 under number F-43/10 RENV).
Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Trasta Komercbanka and Others v ECB

(Case T-698/16) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Death of an applicant - No need to adjudicate in part - Powers of the national authorities of participating Member States and of the ECB under the Single Supervisory Mechanism - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 35/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia), and six other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, C. Hernández Saseta and A. Witte, acting as Agents, and by B. Schneider, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Pommere and J. Davidoviča, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016-529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/2 WOANCA-2016-0005 of the ECB of 11 July 2016 withdrawing the authorisation of Trasta Komercbanka for access to the activities of a credit institution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it was brought by Mr Igors Buimisters;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Trasta Komercbanka AS and the other applicants whose names are included in the annex, with the exception of Mr Buimisters, to pay the costs;

4. Orders Mr Buimisters to bear his own costs;

5. Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Latvia to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-627/16 RENV) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic - Decoupled direct aid - Traditional on-the-spot checks and on-the-spot checks by remote sensing - Discrepancies between the results of the checks - Wine sector - On-the-spot checks of the investments by means of sampling)

(2022/C 73/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, F. Bergius and H. Shev, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59), in so far as it excludes the payments made by the Czech Republic under the EAGF in the amount of EUR 462 517,83 regarding expenditure for decoupled direct aid and in the amount of EUR 636 516,20 regarding expenditure relating to investments in the wine sector.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it excludes the following payments made by the Czech Republic under the EAGF: — in respect of the direct decoupled aid scheme for the financial years 2013 to 2015, the amount of EUR 69 054,23 relating to the deficiencies in the risk analysis; — in respect of the aid scheme for investment in the wine sector for the financial years 2011 to 2014, the amount of EUR 636 516,20.

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Czech Republic and the European Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/24

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2018 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte)

(Case T-69/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Fack Ju Göhte - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 2205/2015–5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Fack Ju Göhte as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Constantin Film Produktion GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/26

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2018 — Bernhard Rintisch v EUIPO, Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

(Case T-25/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark PROTICURD - Earlier national word marks PROTI and PROTIPLUS - Earlier national figurative mark Proti Power - Relative ground for refusal - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Goods not similar - No likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 190/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Condé-sur-Vire, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2016 (Case R 247/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Rintisch and Compagnie laitière européenne.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/50

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Claro Sol Cleaning v EUIPO — Solemo (Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972)

(Case T-159/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972 - Earlier national figurative mark SOL - 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)))

(2018/C 142/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Claro Sol Cleaning, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Solemo Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M. Müller and A. Fottner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 478/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Solemo and Claro Sol Cleaning.

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 9 January 2017 (Case R 478/2016-1);

2. Orders Solemo Oy to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Claro Sol Cleaning, SLU;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Case T-387/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Triggerball v EUIPO (Shape of a ball-like object with edges) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a ball-like object with edges — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Triggerball v EUIPO (Shape of a ball-like object with edges)

(Case T-387/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a ball-like object with edges — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Triggerball GmbH (Baiern-Piusheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Emrich, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 (Case R 376/2017-4), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a ball-like object with edges as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Triggerball GmbH to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Case T-208/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP)

(Case T-208/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 (Case R 1002/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Senetic and HP Hewlett Packard Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Senetic S.A. to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Case T-136/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2018 — Cotécnica v EUIPO — Mignini & Petrini (cotecnica MAXIMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark cotecnica MAXIMA — Earlier national figurative mark MAXIM Alimento Superpremium — 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))

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2018 — Cotécnica v EUIPO — Mignini & Petrini (cotecnica MAXIMA)

(Case T-136/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark cotecnica MAXIMA — Earlier national figurative mark MAXIM Alimento Superpremium — 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))’

Parties

Applicant: Cotécnica, SCCL (established in Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. C. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and J.-B. Devaureix, and, subsequently, J. C. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and L. Montoya Terán, 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: Mignini & Petrini SpA (established in Petrignano di Assisi, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 (Case R 853/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mignini & Petrini and Cotécnica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Cotécnica, SCCL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Mignini & Petrini SpA.

( 1 ) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Case T-163/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Consorzio di garanzia dell’olio extra vergine di oliva di qualità v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Simultaneous promotion campaigns in third countries for olive oil, one financed by the EAGF and intended to promote olive oil of European origin, and the other financed by the ERDF and intended to promote olive oil of Spanish origin — Lack of coordination between the Commission’s staff responsible for managing the two programmes — Material damage — Market loss and loss of revenue — Non-material damage — Damage to commercial reputation)

Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Consorzio di garanzia dell’olio extra vergine di oliva di qualità v Commission

(Case T-163/17) ( 1 )

‛(Non-contractual liability — Simultaneous promotion campaigns in third countries for olive oil, one financed by the EAGF and intended to promote olive oil of European origin, and the other financed by the ERDF and intended to promote olive oil of Spanish origin — Lack of coordination between the Commission’s staff responsible for managing the two programmes — Material damage — Market loss and loss of revenue — Non-material damage — Damage to commercial reputation)’

Parties

Applicant: Consorzio di garanzia dell’olio extra vergine di oliva di qualità (Rome, Italy) (represented by: initially by A. Fratini and G. Pandolfi, and subsequently by A. Fratini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, D. Bianchi and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result, in essence, of (i) a lack of coordination between the Commission’s staff responsible for managing promotion campaigns for European and Spanish olive oils in third countries (India, Russia and China), co-financed by European funds, and (ii) a failure to eliminate the distortions of competition and adverse effects resulting therefrom.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Consorzio di garanzia dell’olio extra vergine di oliva di qualità to bear its own costs;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament

(Case T-13/17) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation - Pre-financing amount fixed at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a pre-financing bank guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules for the application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Misuse of powers))

(2018/C 301/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Europa Terra Nostra eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-30 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 relating to the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision limits the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment conditional on the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Europa Terra Nostra eV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case T-211/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — Amplexor Luxembourg v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Processing of opinions with a view to their publication in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union — Equal treatment of tenderers — Neutralisation of the advantage of the incumbent contractor — Misuse of powers)

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — Amplexor Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-211/17) ( 1 )

‛(Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Processing of opinions with a view to their publication in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union — Equal treatment of tenderers — Neutralisation of the advantage of the incumbent contractor — Misuse of powers)’

Parties

Applicant: Amplexor Luxembourg Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union (PO) of 13 February 2017 to classify the applicant in second place in the context of call for tenders No 10651 for the conclusion of a framework contract in cascade for the processing of opinions with a view to their publication in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Amplexor Luxembourg Sàrl to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

( 1 ) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)

(Case T-104/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark apo - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an apple and earlier EU word marks APPLE - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 392/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and by G. Tritton, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Apo International Co. Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 698/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Apo International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2016 (Case R 698/2016-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.