ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — Sweden v Commission

(Case T-837/16) (1)

(REACH - Commission decision authorising the use of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red - Article 60(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Consideration of the unavailability of alternatives - Error in law)

(2019/C 148/42)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: initially, A. Falk and F. Bergius, and subsequently, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev and J. Lundberg, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, K. Mifsud-Bonnici, K. Simonsson and G. Tolstoy, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initially, C. Thorning and M. Wolff, and subsequently, M. Wolff and J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent); and the European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and A. Tamás, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and C. Schultheiss, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 final of 7 September 2016 granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 final of 7 September 2016 granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;

2. Dismisses the Commission’s application seeking, in the event of the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 final of 7 September 2016, that the effects of that decision be maintained until the Commission is able to review the application for authorisation;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — IPPT PAN v Commission and REA

(Case T-805/16) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Decision to recover by offsetting claims of the European Union arising from the performance of a contract - Effective judicial protection - Right to refer to the Ombudsman - Financial regulation - Debts which are certain - Legitimate expectations - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of sound administration - Misuse of powers - Contractual liability - Audit report - Eligible costs)

(2019/C 328/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki Polskiej Akademii Nauk (IPPT PAN) (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Le Berre, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented: initially by M. Siekierzyńska and P. Rosa Plaza, and subsequently by M. Siekierzyńska and F. van den Berghe, Agents), Research Executive Agency (REA), represented by S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

Re:

Action, first, under Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the Commission Decision of 6 September 2016 to recover alleged claims against the applicant under two contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, by offsetting them against sums owing to the applicant by the Research Executive Agency (REA) under a grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities and, second, under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration that the alleged claims of the Commission under the two contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme referred to above are invalid and an order directing the Commission and REA to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 69 623.94 in relation to the grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme referred to above plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki Polskiej Akademii Nauk (IPPT PAN) to bear two thirds of its own costs and pay those incurred by the Research Executive Agency (REA);

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one third of the costs incurred by IPPT PAN;

4. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission

(Case T-741/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of aspartame originating in China - Refusal to grant market economy treatment - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(7)(b) and (c), second indent, of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 2(10) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 3(2) and (6) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 6(7) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Non-conformity of accounting documents - Non-compliance with international accounting standards - Recourse to EU industry data - Request for adjustment - Burden of proof - Right to a fair hearing - Principle of sound administration - Legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 295/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hyet Sweet (Gravelines, France) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, F.-C. Laprévote and S. Branca, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1247 of 28 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aspartame originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2016 L 204, p. 92).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-437/16) (1)

(Language regime - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit - Language knowledge - Limitation of the choice of second language to German, English and French - Language for communication - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Discrimination on grounds of language - Justification - Interest of the service - Proportionality)

(2020/C 378/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

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

Intervener, in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent)

Re

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for drawing up a reserve list of Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) (OJ 2016, C 171 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls notice of open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for drawing up a reserve list of Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7);

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

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

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Portigon v SRB

(Case T-365/16) (1)

(Economic and Monetary Union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the 2016 ex-ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Procedure for the adoption of the decision - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 36/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener, V. Jungkind and F. Geber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-P. Wojcik, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, second, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern Portigon AG;

2. orders the SRB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Portigon;

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

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2022 — Fininvest and Berlusconi v ECB

(Case T-913/16) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Assessment of acquisitions of qualifying holdings - Opposition to the acquisition of a qualifying holding - Non-retroactivity - Res judicata - Application of national transposing measures - Rights of the defence - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard - New plea - Primacy of EU law - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 266/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) (Rome, Italy), Silvio Berlusconi (Rome) (represented by: R. Vaccarella, A. Di Porto, M. Carpinelli, A. Saccucci, B. Nascimbene, N. Ghedini and A. Baldaccini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta and G. Buono, acting as Agents, and by M. Lamandini, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the ECB’s decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 7LVZJ6XRIE7VNZ4UBX81/4 of 25 October 2016, by which the latter refused to authorise the acquisition of a holding by Fininvest and by Mr Silvio Berlusconi in the credit institution Banca Mediolanum SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) and Mr Silvio Berlusconi to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);

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

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — NLMK v Commission

(Case T-752/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in China and Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Use of facts available - Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Determination of injury - Article 3(7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(7) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Causal link - Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Elimination of injury - Rights of the defence - Equality of arms - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Manifest errors of assessment)

(2021/C 462/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) (Lipetsk, Russia) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, N. Tuominen and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, K. Blanck and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL, (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and S. Seeuws, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 of 29 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation (OJ 2016 L 210, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL, to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/31

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Steiniger v EUIPO — ista Deutschland (IST)

(Case T-80/17) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark IST - Prior EU figurative mark ISTA - Relative ground for refusal - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 437/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ingo Steiniger (Nümbrecht, Germany) (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ista Deutschland GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: F. Lindenberg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 2242/2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between ista Deutschland and Mr Steiniger.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Ingo Steiniger to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/33

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Hermann Bock v EUIPO (Push and Ready)

(Case T-279/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Push and Ready - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 152/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Bock GmbH (Verl, Germany) (represented by: S. Maaßen and V. Schoene, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2017 (Case R 1279/2016-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Push and Ready as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hermann Bock GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/19

Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYouX)

(Case T-179/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark NYouX - Earlier national word mark NUXE - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Distinctive character - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 123/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Roux, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Élisabeth Camille (Alicante, Spain) and Jean–Yves Tariot (Alicante)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2017 (Case R 718/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Laboratoire Nuxe and, on the other, Ms Camille and Mr Tariot.

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 16 January 2017 (Case R 718/2016-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Case T-187/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Mega Liner) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Mega Liner — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive 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) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Mega Liner)

(Case T-187/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Mega Liner — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive 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) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and W. Schramek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 442/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Mega Liner as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 January 2017 (Case R 442/2016–1);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case T-213/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ROMANTIK — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK)

(Case T-213/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ROMANTIK — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Hofmann and W. Göpfert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hotel Preidlhof GmbH (Naturns, Italy) (represented by: A. Wittwer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2017 (Case R 1257/2016-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Hotel Preidlhof and Romantik Hotels & Restaurants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Case T-304/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 5000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000)

(Case T-304/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 5000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)’

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

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: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China) (represented by: S. Fröhlich and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 (Case R 655/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools and Sata.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.