ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Sumner v Commission

(Case T-152/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an infringement procedure brought by the Commission against Ireland - Refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption - Overriding public interest))

(2019/C 44/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Loreto Sumner (Leixlip, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill and E. Martin-Vignerte, Solicitors)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented initially by: A. Joyce and L. Williams and subsequently by A. Joyce, M. Browne and G. Hodge, acting as Agents, and by A. Carroll, Barrister-at-Law)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 247 final of 13 January 2017 refusing access to documents relating to infringement procedure 2014/4131 brought against Ireland regarding the application of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Loreto Sumner to pay the costs;

3. Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — TDH Group v EUIPO — Comercial de Servicios Agrigán (Pet Cuisine)

(Case T-46/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Pet Cuisine - Earlier EU figurative mark The Pet CUISINE alimento para mascotas felices Genial - 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)))

(2019/C 93/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TDH Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Chen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Comercial de Servicios Agrigán, SA (Huesca, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2016 (Case R 685/2016 2), relating to opposition proceedings between Comercial de Servicios Agrigán and TDH Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TDH Group to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K)

(Case T-671/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU work mark TURBO-K - Earlier non-registered marks TURBO-K - Relative ground for refusal - Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Goodwill))

(2019/C 93/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Turbo-K International Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris and A. Muir Wood, Barristers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Turbo-K Ltd (Winchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. van Haperen, lawyer, T. St Quintin, Barrister, and E. Morris, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 (Case R 2135/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Turbo-K and Turbo-K International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;

3. Orders Turbo-K International Ltd and Turbo-K Ltd each to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Proximus v Council

(Case T-117/17) (1)

((Public service contracts - Negotiated procedure - Most economically advantageous tender - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Discretion of a contracting authority - Lawfulness of the evaluation method - Principle of sound financial management))

(2019/C 103/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Proximus SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jaume and S. Cholakova, acting as Agents, and by P. de Bandt, P. Teerlinck and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 23 December 2016 to award the framework contract for the provision of cybersecurity services [confidential], to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Proximus SA/NV to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 –Stavytskyi v Council

(Case T-290/17) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted 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 - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality - Principle of proportionality - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle ne bis in idem))

(2019/C 103/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained 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) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 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) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 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 Mr Edward Stavytskyi’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

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

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

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2019 –Pan v EUIPO — Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)

(Case T-777/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark TOBBIA - Earlier EU figurative mark Peppa Pig - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 155/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xianhao Pan (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Oliva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Entertainment One UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Guise, L. Cassidy and N. Rose, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Astley Baker Davies Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 (Case R 1776/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Entertainment One UK and Astley Baker Davies, and, on the other hand, Mr Xianhao.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Xianhao Pan to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-134/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Refusal of access - Lis alibi pendens - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Exception relating to protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Obligation to conduct a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest)

(2019/C 122/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 736 final of 2 February 2017, refusing Hércules Club de Fútbol access to documents relating to the procedure for reviewing State aid SA.363872.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD to pay the costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Kiku v CPVO — Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Pinova)

(Case T-765/17) (1)

(Plant varieties - Nullity proceedings - Apple variety Pinova - Rejection of the application for a declaration of nullity - New variety - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Burden of proof - Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion)

(2019/C 187/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kiku GmbH (Girlan, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (represented by: M. Ekvad, F. Mattina and O. Lamberti, acting as Agents, assisted by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the General Court: Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Dresden, Germany) (represented initially by: T. Leidereiter, and subsequently by: B. Lorenzen, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 16 August 2017 (Case A 005/2016) concerning the nullity proceedings between Kiku and the Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie.

Operative part

The Court hereby:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Kiku GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2019 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole)

(Case T-611/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a shoe sole - Well known facts - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rejection of the request to hold a hearing before the Board of Appeal - Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 172/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: All Star CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, lawyers, and S. Malynicz QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carrefour Hypermarchés (Évry, France) (represented by: C. Verneret, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 (Case R 952/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Carrefour Hypermarchés and All Star.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders All Star CV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Nerantzaki v Commission

(Case T-813/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 - Conditions for admission - Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition - Error of law)

(2019/C 230/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eleni Nerantzaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: N. Korogiannakis, and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Mihaylova and L. Radu Bouyon, and subsequently by L. Radu Bouyon, D. Milanowska and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of, first, the decision of the selection board of 15 May 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/331/16 and, second, the decision of the appointing authority of 14 September 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of the competition selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the selection board of 15 May 2017 not to admit Ms Eleni Nerantzaki to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/331/16;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-239/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Germany - Flat-rate financial correction applied due to insufficient frequency of key controls - Obligation to calculate interest and record it in the accounts annually - Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC)No 1290/2005 - Article 6(h) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)

(2019/C 213/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially D. Klebs and T. Henze, and subsequently D. Klebs, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, and M. Zalewski, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU)2017/264 of 14 February 2017 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 2017 L 39, p. 12), in so far as it concerns the Federal Republic of Germany.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-542/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Port of Tartous Loan Agreement No 22057 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Port of Tartous Loan Agreement No 22057, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 20 609 429,45;

2. Declares that those sums are to bear default interest, in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Port of Tartous loan agreement No 22057, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 22 May 2003 and amended on 17 May 2006, 21 May 2007 and 10 July 2008, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria

(Case T-539/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Al Thawra Loan Agreement No 16405 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 255/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and by D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Al Thawra Loan Agreement No 16405, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sums of EUR 404 792,06, 954 331,07 pounds sterling (GBP), 29 130 433,00 Japanese yen (JPY) and 1 498 184,58 US dollars (USD).

2. Declares that those sums are to bear default interest at an annual rate of 4.52% on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 up to the date that payment is made.

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

4. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Optile v Commission

(Case T-309/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)

(2019/C 328/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Organisation professionnelle des transports d’Île de France (Optile) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Thiriez and M. Dangibeaud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Organisation professionnelle des transports d’Île de France (Optile) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (C del M)

(Case T-774/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark C del M - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 305/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Café del Mar, SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Josep de sa Talaia, Spain) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. Gracia Albero, 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, intervener before the General Court: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1618/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González and, on the other, Mr Guiral Broto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1618/2015-5).

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar SC, Mr José Les Viamonte and Mr Carlos Andrea González in the proceedings before the General Court.

3. Orders Mr Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Havenbedrijf Antwerpen and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven v Commission

(Case T-696/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Concept of economic activity - Services of general economic interest - Non-economic activities - Separable nature - Selective nature - Request for a transitional period)

(2019/C 406/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Havenbedrijf Antwerpen NV (Antwerp, Belgium), Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven NV (Zeebrugge, Belgium) (represented by P. Wytinck, W. Panis and I. Letten, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2115 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38393 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by Belgium — Taxation of ports in Belgium (OJ 2017 L 332, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Havenbedrijf Antwerpen NV and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven NV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.