ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Delifruit v Commission

(Case T-629/20) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance chlorpyrifos - Determination of maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos in or on bananas - Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 - Scientific and technical knowledge available - Other legitimate factors)

(2022/C 359/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delifruit, SA (Guayaquil, Ecuador) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and S. Abdel-Qader, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and M. ter Haar, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Delifruit, SA, seeks the partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 of 23 July 2020 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl in or on certain products (OJ 2020 L 239, p. 7, corrigendum OJ 2020 L 245, p. 31) (‘the contested regulation’), in so far as it sets the maximum residue level (‘MRL’) for chlorpyrifos in or on bananas at 0.01 mg/kg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Delifruit, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — OC v EEAS

(Case T-681/20) (1)

(Liability - Civil service - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Reporting of irregularities - Inspection report - Transfer - Acts adversely affecting an official - Conduct not entailing a decision - Compliance with the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Protection of whistleblowers - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to privacy - Protection of personal data)

(2022/C 340/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OC (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage that she allegedly suffered as a result of acts or conduct of the European External Action Service (EEAS).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 to OC for the non-material damage suffered;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by OC.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2022 — LE v Commission

(Case T-475/20) (1)

(Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Debit notes issued by the Commission for the recovery of grants awarded by contract - Enforceable decision - Article 299 TFEU)

(2023/C 7/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LE (represented by: M. Straus, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André, J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 3988 final of 9 June 2020 relating to the recovery of a principal amount of EUR 275 915,12 from it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LE to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Joined Cases T-371/20 and T-554/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed - EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees - Individual positions of the Member States - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process)

(2022/C 432/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage and T. Bégel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Pollinis France, seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and Commission Decision C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, by which the European Commission refused to grant the applicant access to certain documents concerning the Guidance Document of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees, adopted by the EFSA on 27 June 2013, originally published on 4 July 2013, then republished on 4 July 2014 and granted it partial access to certain other documents concerning the 2013 guidance document on bees.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the European Commission C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, in that they refuse to grant access to the requested documents on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — PIK-KO v EUIPO — Haribo Ricqles Zan (P.I.C. Co.)

(Case T-73/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark P.I.C. Co. - Earlier national figurative mark PIK - 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) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Declaration of partial invalidity)

(2022/C 11/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PIK-KO AD (Kazichene, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Haribo Ricqles Zan (Marseilles, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 (Case R 1847/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Haribo Ricqles Zan and PIK-KO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PIK-KO AD to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA)

(Case T-149/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VITADHA - Earlier Spanish word mark VITANADH - 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))

(2022/C 171/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vitae Health Innovation, SL (Montmeló, Spain) (represented by: E. Torner Lasalle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2021 (Case R 2719/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Vitae Health Innovation and UGA Nutraceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders UGA Nutraceuticals Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2022 — Construcciones Electromecánicas Sabero v EUIPO — Magdalenas de las Heras (Heras Bareche)

(Case T-99/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Heras Bareche - Earlier EU figurative mark MAGDALENAS DeLasHeras - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 119/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Construcciones Electromecánicas Sabero, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, P. Román Maestre and D. Liern Cendrero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Magdalenas de las Heras, SA (Aranda de Duero, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2020 (Case R 1019/2020-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Magdalenas de las Heras and Construcciones Electromecánicas Sabero.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Construcciones Electromecánicas Sabero, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO COUTURE)

(Case T-30/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SO COUTURE - EU word mark SO …? - Relative grounds 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))

(2022/C 207/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Clichy, France) (represented by: M. Treis and E. M. Strobel, 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: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J. P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2020 (Case R 158/2016 5), relating to opposition proceedings between Debonair Trading Internacional and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Vetpharma Animal Health v EUIPO — Deltavit (DELTATIC)

(Case T-146/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DELTATIC - Earlier EU word mark DELTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2022/C 198/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vetpharma Animal Health, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Deltavit (Janzé, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 (Case R 776/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Deltavit and Vetpharma Animal Health.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vetpharma Animal Health, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders Deltavit to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-104/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune, acting as Agent)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Alex Kande Mupompa to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background III)

(Case T-280/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark - Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background III - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 213/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 (Case R 1897/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing three-pointed stars on a black background III as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Roos and Others v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-710/21, T-722/21 and T-723/21) (1)

(Public health - Requirement to present a valid EU digital COVID-19 certificate to access the Parliament’s buildings - Legal basis - Freedom and independence of Members of the European Parliament - Obligation to ensure the health of staff in the service of the European Union - Parliamentary immunity - Processing of personal data - Right to respect for private life - Right to physical integrity - Right to security - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

(2022/C 266/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Robert Roos and 17 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru, L. Panepinto and V. Heinen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and A.-M. Dumbrăvan, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their actions under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants, who are all elected Members of the European Parliament for the 2019-2024 term, seek the annulment of the Parliament Bureau Decision of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules for access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Robert Roos and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Kazembe Musonda v Council

(Case T-106/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda (Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune, acting as Agent)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Jose A. Alfonso Arpon v EUIPO — Puma (PLUMAflex by Roal)

(Case T-357/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark PLUMAflex by Roal - Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 311/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL (Arnedo, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 April 2021 (Case R 2991/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Vitronic v EUIPO (Enforcement Trailer)

(Case T-433/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Enforcement Trailer - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vitronic Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: D. Tsoumanis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2021 (Case R 236/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vitronic Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — dennree v EUIPO (BioMarkt)

(Case T-641/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark BioMarkt - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) du of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 359/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: dennree GmbH (Töpen, Germany) (represented by: K. Röttgen, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) du 9 August 2021 (Case R 783/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders dennree GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Tigercat International v EUIPO — Caterpillar (Tigercat)

(Case T-251/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Tigercat - Earlier EU figurative mark CAT - 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))

(2022/C 340/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tigercat International Inc. (Cambridge, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: B. Führmeyer and E. Matthes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Georgieva, D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Caterpillar Inc. (Peoria, Illinois, United States) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and modification of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2021 (Case R 16/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tigercat International Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-40/21) (1)

(EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Absence of procedures for recovery of aid overpaid - Procedural safeguards - Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 34(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014)

(2022/C 418/27)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: E. Drugda, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kaduczak, R. Lindenthal and A. Sauka, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Slovak Republic seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 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 2020 L 390, p. 10), in so far as a financial correction of EUR 19 656 905,11 applies to the Slovak Republic concerning decoupled direct aid for the financial year 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.