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

Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2019 — Italy and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-98/16, T 196/16 and T-198/16) (1)

(State aid - Intervention by a consortium governed by private law of banks in favour of one of its members - Intervention authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Definition of State aid - Whether imputable to the State - State resources)

(2019/C 155/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant in Case T-98/16: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieir, Agent, S. Fiorentino and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Applicant in Case T-196/16: Banca Popolare di Bari SCpA, formerly Tercas-Cassa di risparmio della provincia di Teramo SpA (Banca Tercas SpA) (Teramo, Italy) (represented by: A. Santa Maria, M. Crisostomo, E. Gambaro and F. Mazzocchi, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-198/16: Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Scassellati Sforzolini and G. Faella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, L, Flynn, A. Bouchagiar and D. Recchia, Agents,)

Intervener in support of the applicant in Cast T-198/16: Banca d’Italia (represented by: M. Perassi, O. Capolino. M. Marcucci and M. Todino, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1208 of 23 December 2015 on State aid SA.39451(2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) granted by Italy to the bank Tercas (OJ 2016 L 203 p. 1),

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1208 of 23 December 2015 on State aid SA.39451(2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) granted by Italy to the bank Tercas);

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB

(Case T-487/16) (1)

((Civil service - EIB staff - Pensions - 2008 Reform - Increase in the rate of contributions - Subsequent pay slips - No act adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 103/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), and the 33 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli and subsequently by T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and J. Klein, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, first, annulment of the ‘decisions’ of the EIB, contained in the applicants’ pay slips for February 2011, to increase the rate of their contributions to the pension scheme from 9 % to 10 % and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay a symbolic EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the other staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the EIB.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-58/11 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Poland v Commission

(Joined Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17) (1)

(State aid - Polish tax on the retail sector - Progressive tax levied on turnover - Decision to open the formal investigation procedure - Final decision classifying the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Condition relating to selectivity)

(2019/C 230/34)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and A. Kramarczyk-Szaładzińska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: in Case T-836/16, M. Fehér, G. Koós and E. Tóth, and in Case T-624/17, M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Commission Decision C(2016) 5596 final of 19 September 2016 on the State Aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) — Poland — Polish tax on the retail sector, opening the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of that measure and, secondly, Commission Decision (EU) 2018/160 of 30 June 2017 on the State aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector (OJ 2018 L 29, p.38), closing the procedure and according to which that measure constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market which has been unlawfully implemented.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 5596 final of 19 September 2016 on the State Aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) — Poland — Polish tax on the retail sector;

2. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2018/160 of 30 June 2017 on the State aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland in Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17;

4. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs in Cases T-836/6 and T-624/17.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-301/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 - Regulation (EC) No 1255/2009 (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Dumping margin - Determination of the export price - Association between an exporter and an importer - Reliable export price - Construction of the export price - Reasonable margin for selling, general and administrative costs - Reasonable margin for profit - Injury to the Union industry - Calculation of price undercutting and the injury margin - Causal link - Access to confidential data of the anti-dumping investigation - Rights of the defence)

(2019/C 187/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Saint-Gobain Pam (Pont-à-Mousson, France) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and C. Bouvarel, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India (OJ 2016 L 73, p. 53), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India, in so far as it concerns Jindal Saw Ltd;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia SpA;

3. Orders Saint-Gobain Pam to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-883/16) (1)

(Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Commission Decision approving the variation of the conditions for the exemption from EU requirements of the rules governing the operation of the OPAL pipeline with regard to third party access and tariff regulation - Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73 - Principle of energy solidarity)

(2019/C 383/64)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Rudzińska and M. Kawnik, acting as Agents)

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

Interveners in support of the applicants: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kucina, G. Bambāne and V. Soņeca, Agents), and by Republic of Lithuania, (represented: initially by D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Dzikovič and R. Krasuckaitė, and subsequently by R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by T. Henze and R. Kanitz, and subsequently by R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on the review of the conditions for exemption of the OPAL pipeline, granted under Directive 2003/55/EC, from the rules on third party access and tariff regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on the review of the conditions for exemption of the OPAL pipeline, granted under Directive 2003/55/EC, from the rules on third party access and tariff regulation;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Republic of Poland;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE)

(Case T-180/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER SHAPE - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - 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 305/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2907/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot 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 222, 20.6.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap.org (REPOWER)

(Case T-842/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark REPOWER - Absolute ground for invalidity - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 242/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón and W. Sakulin, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

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 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) in so far as the application for a declaration of invalidity has been upheld in respect of voice tubes in Class 9;

2. Dismisses the action for the remainder;

3. Orders Repower AG to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by EUIPO and repowermap.org.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — YT and YU v Commission

(Case T-532/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses - Place of origin located in a third country - Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)

(2022/C 303/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: YT, YU (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke, T. Van Lysebeth and N. Maes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions to reduce, from 1 January 2014, the reimbursement of annual travel expenses enabling the applicants to maintain a connection with their place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders YT and YU to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-8/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-191/16) (1)

(Financial assistance - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006) - Contract concerning Union financial assistance in favour of a project in the field of medical collaboration - Enforceable decision - Competence of the Commission - Grant agreements - Recovery of part of the financial contribution paid - Arbitration clause - Eligible costs - Legitimate expectations)

(2021/C 502/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, L. André and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents, and E. Roussou, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 1080 final of 16 February 2016 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 109 415,20, plus interest, paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/28

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — RL v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-21/17) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion year - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 10, with effect from 1 July 2015 - Interinstitutional transfer - Prorata temporis system - Comparative examination of the merits - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Liability))

(2018/C 052/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RL (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of 270 TFEU and seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 May 2016 refusing to promote the application on 1 July 2015 and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders RL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/50

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Webgarden v EUIPO (Dating Bracelet)

(Case T-272/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Dating Bracelet - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Previous EUIPO practice - Equal treatment - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 161/56)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Webgarden Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Jambrik, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 (Case R 658/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Dating Bracelet as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Webgarden Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/50

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)

(Case T-230/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark RSTUDIO - Earlier EU word mark ER/STUDIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2018/C 142/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rstudio, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC and G. Smith, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 493/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Embarcadero Technologies and Rstudio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rstudio, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
Case T-463/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Raise Conseil v EUIPO — Raizers (RAISE) (European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark RAISE — 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) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1) and(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Raise Conseil v EUIPO — Raizers (RAISE)

(Case T-463/17) ( 1 )

‛(European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark RAISE — 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) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1) and(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Raise Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum and T. Lachacinski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Raizers (Paris) (represented by: E. Fortunet, lawyer)

Re

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 (Case R 1606/2016-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Raizers and Raise Conseil.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Raise Conseil to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.
Case T-183/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Menta y Limón Decoración v EUIPO — Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Representation of a man in regional costume) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a man in regional costume — Earlier national industrial designs — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use of the EU trade mark prohibited under national law — Application of national law by EUIPO)

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Menta y Limón Decoración v EUIPO — Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Representation of a man in regional costume)

(Case T-183/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a man in regional costume — Earlier national industrial designs — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use of the EU trade mark prohibited under national law — Application of national law by EUIPO)’

Parties

Applicant: Menta y Limón Decoración, SL (Argame, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Santa Cruz de La Palma, Spain) (represented by: M.J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 510/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Menta y Limón Decoración and Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Menta y Limón Decoración, SL to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.