ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2017 —

GX v Commission

(Case T‑556/16)

(Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 — Decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Actions brought by officials—Action against a decision rejecting a complaint—Effect—Disputed measure referred to the Court—Exception—Decision not confirmatory in character (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 23-26)

2. Actions brought by officials—Action directed against a decision of non-inclusion on a competition reserve list—Possibility of invoking irregularity of the competition notice to challenge non-inclusion—Conditions (Staff Regulations, Art. 91) (see paras 29, 30)

3. Officials—Competitions—Obligation on EU institutions to assure all candidates a smooth and regular running of the tests—Infringement—Relevance to the legality of the tests—Conditions (see paras 36-38)

4. Officials—Competitions—Selection Board—Rejection of application—Obligation to state reasons—Scope—Observance of the secrecy of proceedings (Staff Regulations, Art. 25; Annex III, Art. 6) (see paras 65, 66)

5. Officials—Competitions—Assessment of the aptitudes of candidates—Selection Board’s discretion—Judicial review—Limits (Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 5) (see para. 71)

6. Actions brought by officials—Application for damages linked to an application for annulment—Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 77)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 of 20 August 2014 not to include the applicant on the reserve list and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3))

(see paras 16-18)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 2017 —

De Masi v Commission

(Case T‑11/16)

(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No confirmatory decision — Request for access on the basis of interinstitutional cooperation under Article 230 TFEU — Documents relating to the work of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’ set up by the Council — Act not amenable to review — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Definition—Measures producing binding legal effects—Preparatory measures—Not included—Letter of the Commission replying to a request for access to documents without taking a final position in relation to the documents requested—Preparatory act (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 3, 4, 6(2), and 8; Commission Decision 2001/937, Arts 3 and 4 and Annex) (see paras 27-29, 34, 35, 41, 42, 47, 48)

2. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Definition—Measures producing binding legal effects—Letter of the Commission in reply to the request for access submitted by the chairman of the committee of the Parliament seeking communication of documents concerning the work of a group established by the Council—Letter issued in the context of inter-institutional dialogue between the Parliament and the Commission on the subject of access to documents—Precluded—Administrative character of the correspondence (Art. 13(2) TEU; Arts 230, second para., TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 50, 57, 58, 61, 62)

Re:

APPLI CATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment, first, of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 9 December 2015 responding to the request for access to the documents of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’, submitted by the applicant on the basis 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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), and, secondly, of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of9 November 2015 responding to the request for access to the same documents submitted by the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Special Committee on Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2017 —

L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)

(Case T‑179/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Word mark MASTER SMOKY and figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 29, 36, 39, 40, 45, 48, 57, 58)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 27, 54)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs—Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed—Make-up industry (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 51, 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2905/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 1 March 2017 —

Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)

(Case T‑76/16)

(European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark AEGYPTISCHE ERDE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Rejection of the application — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

1. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Direction issued to the Office—Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 14)

2. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Amendment of a decision by the Office—Assessment having regard to the competences conferred on the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 16)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 22)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 23)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Word mark AEGYPTISCHE ERDE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 27, 29-34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2015 (Case R 1257/2015-1) concerning an application for registration of word sign AEGYPTISCHE ERDE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)

(Case T‑402/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark berlinGas — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Aim—Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 14)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Concept—Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-19, 26)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Assessment of the registrability of a sign—EU rules only taken into account—Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries—Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 30)

4. EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Principle of equal treatment—Principle of sound administration—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice—Principle of legality—Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 31-34)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Word mark berlinGas (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 36, 39, 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 (Case R 291/2016-1), relating to the application for registration of the word sign berlinGas as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 February 2017 —

Acerga v Council

(Case T‑153/16)

(Action for annulment — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters — Association — No individual concern — Act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Regulation establishing fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters—Action by an association of fishing vessel owners—Admissibility—Conditions (Council Regulation No 2016/72) (see para. 15)

2. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Individual concern—Criteria—Regulation establishing fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters—Action by an association of fishing vessel owners—Undertakings represented not individually affected—Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 2016/72) (see paras 21-30)

3. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU—Any act of general scope other than legislative acts—Regulation establishing fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters—Inclusion—Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 2016/72) (see paras 31-46)

Re:

ACTION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (OJ 2016 L 22, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 22 March 2018 –

Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T‑732/16 R)

(Interim proceedings — State aid — Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs — Public guarantee granted by a public body — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Application for a stay of proceedings — Lack of urgency)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 32-35)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Financial loss—Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence—Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company—Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs—Lack of any urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 38-45, 51, 56)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is rejected.

2. The order of 10 November 2016, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission (T‑732/16 R), is set aside.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Durazzo v EEAS

(Case T‑559/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2014 promotion exercise — Acts not adversely affecting an official — Manifest inadmissibility — Decision not to promote the applicant — Article 43 and Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits — Taking into account staff reports for the purpose of promotion — Purely literal assessments — No method enabling staff reports to be compared for the purpose of promotion — Manifestly well-founded action)

1. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Meaning—Proposal of a list of officials eligible for promotion—Preparatory act—Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91) (see paras 26, 27)

2. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Decision rejecting a complaint—Rejection pure and simple—Confirmatory measure—Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)) (see paras 28, 29)

3. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on (see para. 46)

4. Plea of illegality—Scope—Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded—Measure of a general character as the basis for the contested measure (Art. 277 TFEU) (see para. 54)

5. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Correspondence between the complaint and the application—Same subject-matter and legal basis—Plea of illegality raised for the first time in the context of the action—Admissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 56)

6. Officials—Promotion—Consideration of comparative merits—Procedures—Administration’s discretion—Introduction of a system based exclusively on the comments of assessors, without recourse to marks or analytic assessments—Not permissible (Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45) (see paras 65-70, 83, 84)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of three acts of the EEAS, namely (i) the proposal for promotion of 11 July 2014 in so far as it concerns Grade AD 13, (ii) the decision of 29 October 2014 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 13 under the 2014 promotion exercise, and (iii) the decision of 28 May 2015 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant against that refusal to promote him.

Operative part

1. The decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 29 October 2014 not to promote Mr Giacomo Durazzo to Grade AD 13 under the 2014 promotion exercise is annulled.

2. The action is dismissed as to the remainder.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2018 –

QC v European Council

(Case T‑834/16)

(Action for annulment — EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 — Press release — Notion of ‘international agreement’ — Identification of the author of the act — Scope of the act — Meeting of the European Council — Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union — Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country — First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Lack of jurisdiction)

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures of the European Council — Included — Limits (Art. 15 TEU; Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 26-29)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures of an EU institution, body, office or agency producing binding legal effects — Statement, published in the form of a press release on the Council’s website, concerning the results of a meeting between the heads of State of Member States and the Turkish Prime Minister — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.) (see paras 31-36)

3. Plea of illegality — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — General measure providing the basis of the contested decision — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 277 TFEU) (see para. 46)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of an alleged agreement concluded between the European Council and the Republic of Turkey dated 18 March 2016 and entitled ‘EU-Turkey Statement, 18 March 2016’ and, secondly, application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the European Council unlawfully failed to take measures.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
9

The EU-Turkey statement provided that, while ‘reconfirm[ing] their commitment to the implementation of their joint action plan activated on 29 November 2015[, the Republic of] Turkey and the [European Union] recognise[d] that further, swift and determined efforts [were] needed’. That statement continued in the following terms: ‘In order to break the business model of the smugglers and to offer migrants an alternative to putting their lives at risk, the EU and [the Republic of] Turkey today decided to end the irregular migration from Turkey to the [European Union]. In order to achieve this goal, they agreed on the following additional action points: (1) All new irregular migrants crossing from Turkey into Greek islands as from 20 March 2016 will be returned to Turkey. This will take place in full accordance with [European Union] and international law, thus excluding any kind of collective expulsion. All migrants will be protected in accordance with the relevant international standards and in respect of the principle of non-refoulement. It will be a temporary and extraordinary measure which is necessary to end the human suffering and restore public order. Migrants arriving in the Greek islands will be duly registered and any application for asylum will be processed individually by the Greek authorities in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive, in cooperation with UNHCR [the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]. Migrants not applying for asylum or whose application has been found unfounded or inadmissible in accordance with the said directive will be returned to Turkey. [The Republic of] Turkey and [the Hellenic Republic], assisted by [European Union] institutions and agencies, will take the necessary steps and agree any necessary bilateral arrangements, including the presence of Turkish officials on Greek islands and Greek officials in Turkey as from 20 March 2016, to ensure liaison and thereby facilitate the smooth functioning of these arrangements. The costs of the return operations of irregular migrants will be covered by the EU. (2) For every Syrian being returned to Turkey from Greek islands, another Syrian will be resettled from Turkey to the [European Union] taking into account the UN Vulnerability Criteria. A mechanism will be established, with the assistance of the Commission, [European Union] agencies and other Member States, as well as the UNHCR, to ensure that this principle will be implemented as from the same day the returns start. Priority will be given to migrants who have not previously entered or tried to enter the [European Union] irregularly. On the EU side, resettlement under this mechanism will take place, in the first instance, by honouring the commitments taken by Member States in the conclusions of Representatives of the Governments of Member States meeting within the Council on 20 July 2015, of which 18000 places for resettlement remain. Any further need for resettlement will be carried out through a similar voluntary arrangement up to a limit of an additional 54000 persons. …’
Order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 — TW and Others v SRB

(Case T‑555/17)

(Action for annulment — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Manifest inadmissibility in part)

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Conditions relating to a signatory—Status of a third party in relation to the parties—Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party—Manifest inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third indent)

(see paras 7, 8)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the SRB SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A and application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed in so far as it was brought by UB.