ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-259/13 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — France v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development support measures — Areas with natural handicaps — Flat rate financial correction — Expenditure incurred by France — Loading criterion — On-the-spot controls)

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — France v Commission

(Case T-259/13 RENV) ( 1 )

‛(EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development support measures — Areas with natural handicaps — Flat rate financial correction — Expenditure incurred by France — Loading criterion — On-the-spot controls)’

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, S. Horrenberger, R. Coesme, E. de Moustier and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Bianchi, G. von Rintelen and J. Aquilina, and subsequently by D. Bianchi, G. von Rintelen and A. Lewi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/24

Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2017 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission

(Case T-646/13) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Protection of national and linguistic minorities and strengthening of cultural and linguistic diversity in the European Union - Refusal of registration - Commission manifestly lacking legislative powers - Obligation to state reasons - Article 4(2)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011))

(2017/C 086/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bürgerausschuss für die Bürgerinitiative Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe (represented by: E. Johansson, J. Lund and C. Lund, and subsequently by E. Johansson and T. Hieber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, A. Pálfy and G. Szima, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent) and Romania (represented by: R. Radu, R. Haţieganu, D. Bulancea and A. Wellman, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 5969 final of 13 September 2013 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 5969 final of 13 September 2013 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bürgerausschuss für die Bürgerinitiative Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe;

3. Orders Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Romania to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
Official Journal of the European Union

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

(Case T-188/14) (1)

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

(2015/C 073/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2014 (Case R 739/2013-5) confirming rejection of the application for registration of the word sign GentleCare as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/42

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)

(Case T-562/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark YOO - Earlier national and international word marks YO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yoo Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R 762/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Yoo Holdings Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Yoo Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/33

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-51/14) (1)

((System of traditional specialities guaranteed - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Rejection of the request for registration of the name ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (spreadable butter) as a traditional speciality guaranteed - Relationship with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 specifying the conditions for the use of the sales description ‘butter’))

(2015/C 213/56)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Guillem Carrau, Z. Malůšková and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/658/EU of 13 November 2013 rejecting an application for entry in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Pomazánkové máslo (TSG)) (OJ 2013 L 305, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/27

Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)

(Case T-254/14) (1)

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

(2015/C 346/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Warenhandelszentrum Ltd (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: F.-P. Hirschel, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (represented by: initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 2035/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG and Warenhandelszentrum Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Warenhandelszentrum Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/23

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council

(Case T-95/14) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of power - Right to property - Equal treatment))

(2015/C 262/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/31

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)

(Joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14) (1)

((Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer - Technical examination - Distinctiveness - Test guidelines - Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO))

(2015/C 354/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervening before the General Court: Brookfield New Zealand Limited (Havelock North, New Zealand); and Elaris SNC (Angers, France) (represented by: M. Eller, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against two decisions of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 20 September 2013 (Cases A 004/2007 and A 003/2007) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Schniga Srl to pay the costs incurred by Brookfield New Zealand Limited and by Elaris SNC and to pay its own costs. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/36

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)

(Case T-571/14) (1)

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

(2015/C 354/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 125/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/46

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Hüpeden v Council and Commission

(Case T-206/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Dumping - Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared invalid by the Court of Justice - Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of the regulation - Action for damages - Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law - Admissibility - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Duty of care - Causal link))

(2015/C 389/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hüpeden & Co. (GmbH & Co.) KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by K. Landry, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by D. Geradin and N. Tuominen, and subsequently by N. Tuominen, lawyers); and European Commission (represented by T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35), declared invalid by the judgment of 22 March 2012 in GLS (C-338/10, ECR, EU:C:2012:158).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hüpeden & Co. (GmbH & Co.) KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/51

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ULTIMATE)

(Case T-385/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word ULTIMATE - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2014 (Case R 1787/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ULTIMATE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Volkswagen AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as the form of order seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 8 July 2014 refusing to grant Mr Ivan Jurašinović full access to certain documents exchanged with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the proceedings against Mr A. Gotovina, taken following the partial annulment of the initial decision by judgment of 3 October 2012 in Jurašinović v Council (T-63/10, Rec, EU:T:2012:516)concern Documents No 7, 25, 33, 34 and 36.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/52

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Cyprus v OHIM (XAΛΛOYMI and HALLOUMI)

(Joined Cases T-292/14 and T-293/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks XAΛΛOYMI and HALLOUMI - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 398/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2014 (Case R 1849/2013-4 and Case R 1503/2013-4), concerning applications for registration of the word sign XAΛΛOYMI and the word sign HALLOUMI, respectively, as Community trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Cyprus to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/25

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Alexandrou v Commission

(Joined Cases T-515/14 P and T-516/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Recruitment - Competition notice EPSO/AD/231/12 - Non-admission to the assessment tests - Obligation to state reasons - Access to documents - Refusal of the request for access to the multiple-choice questions posed in the admission tests - Confidential nature of the Selection Board Proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Competence of the Civil Service Tribunal - Article 270 TFEU - Concept of act adversely affecting an official - Article 90(2) of the Statute))

(2016/C 007/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Christodoulos Alexandrou (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Two appeals against the judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third chamber) of 14 May 2014 in Alexandrou v Commission (F-34/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:93 and F-140/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:94), seeking to have those judgments set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal in case T-516/14 P;

2. Sets aside, in part, in case T-515/14 P, the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2014 in Alexandrou v Commission (F-34/13) to the extent that it: — did not give a response to the first plea in law, in so far as it alleged failure to state reasons, in that the particular circumstances would have justified giving Mr Christodoulos Alexandrou access to the questions at issue; — rejected the fourth plea in law;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal in case T-515/14 P;

4. Dismisses the action in case F-34/13 in so far as it is based, first, on the failure to state reasons in the contested decisions in that Mr. Alexandrou raised individual circumstances justifying his access to the questions at issue and, secondly, on the plea in law alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial, alternatively, to an effective remedy;

5. Orders each party in case T-516/14 P to bear its own costs;

6. Orders each party in case T-515/14 P to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/18

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)

(Case T-21/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SANDTER 1953 - Earlier national word mark Sander - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal of registration - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 429/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NetMed Sàrl (Wasserbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Schafhaus, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2013 (Case R 1846/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between NetMed Sàrl and Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders NetMed Sàrl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/44

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Nürburgring v OHIM — Biedermann (Nordschleife)

(Case T-181/14) (1)

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

(2016/C 027/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nürburgring GmbH (Nürburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lutz Biedermann (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2014 (Case R 163/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Lutz Biedermann and Nürburgring GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nürburgring GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
2.

Orders the effects of Article 1 of Decision 2014/222 and Article 1 of Implementing Regulation No 397/2014 to be maintained in respect of North Drilling until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of that appeal;