ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — CdT v EUIPO

(Case T-417/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Obligation to award the translation services required for EUIPO’s functioning to the CdT - Termination of the arrangement between the CdT and EUIPO - Publication of a call for tenders for translation services - Plea of inadmissibility - No interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate in part - Partial inadmissibility)

(2019/C 432/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M Garnier, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

In the first place, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of EUIPO’s letter of 26 April 2018, inasmuch as it gives notice of EUIPO’s intention not to extend beyond 31 December 2018 the arrangement concluded in 2016 with the CdT concerning translation services required for EUIPO’s functioning, secondly, of EUIPO’s letter of 26 April 2018, inasmuch as it informs the CdT of its intention to take the necessary precautionary steps to ensure the continuity of the translation services beyond 31 December 2018, in particular by publishing calls for tenders and, thirdly, of EUIPO’s decision to publish in the Official Journal of the European Union a call for tenders for translation services under reference 2018/S 114 — 258472; in the second place, an application for an order prohibiting EUIPO from signing contracts in connection with that call for tenders; and in the third place, an application for a declaration that the publication of a call for tenders for translation services by an agency or any other body or office of the European Union is unlawful, where a founding regulation stipulates that translation services are to be provided by the CdT.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision to terminate the arrangement concluded on 13 December 2016 between the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs of the CdT, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Case T-417/18 R.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)

(Case T-690/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Vita - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Res judicata)

(2020/C 61/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2018 (Case R 695/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio and Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 September 2018 (Case R 695/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio, SA and Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe.

(1) OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2019 — Billa v EUIPO — Boardriders IP Holdings (Billa)

(Case T-524/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Billa - Earlier EU word marks BILLABONG - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Comparison of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 36/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Billa AG (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by: J. Rether, M. Kinkeldey, J. Rosenhäger and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Boardriders IP Holdings LLC (Huntington Beach, California, United States) (represented by: J. Fish, Solicitor, and A. Bryson, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 (Case R 2235/2017-4), as rectified on 4 October 2018, relating to opposition proceedings between Boardriders IP Holdings and Billa.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 June 2018 (Case R 2235/2017-1) as regards the goods ‘games’ in Class 28 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, covered by the mark applied for;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2020 — Dalasa v EUIPO — Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin (charantea)

(Case T-733/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark charantea - Earlier EU figurative mark CHARITÉ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 95/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dalasa Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft Öffentlichen Rechts (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 (Case R 540/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Charité and Dalasa.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 October 2018 (Case R 540/2018-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dalasa Handelsgesellschaft mbH in the proceedings before the General Court;

3. Orders Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft Öffentlichen Rechts to bear the costs that it has incurred during the proceedings before the General Court;

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

(1) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Vanda Pharmaceuticals v Commission

(Case T-211/18) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fanaptum - iloperidone - Commission refusal decision - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Scientific evaluation of the risks and benefits of a medicinal product - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2020/C 61/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, B. Natens, A. S. Melin and C. Muttin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of (i) the Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 252 final of 15 January 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) for the medicinal product for human use Fanaptum — iloperidone, and (ii) the opinion and the assessment report of the Committee for Human Medicinal Products of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 9 November 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vanda Pharmaceuticals Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — ZF v Commission

(Case T-605/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pension - Decision determining pension rights - Pension statements - Action for annulment - Time limit for lodging a complaint - Delay - Purely confirmatory act - Partial inadmissibility - Recovery of undue payments - Classification in grade and step - Multiplication factor - Withdrawal of an unlawful act - Legitimate expectation - Reasonable time)

(2020/C 114/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZF (represented by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by B. Mongin and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the note of 30 November 2017 by which the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of the Commission amended, with effect from 1 April 2015, the applicant’s retirement pension rights, and the note of 31 January 2018 in which it informed the applicant of the amount of the balance of the European Union’s debts against him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of ZF’s costs.

(1) OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-166/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Renewal of the listing of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Obligation for the Council to communicate the new elements justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to respect for private and family life - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Plea of illegality)

(2020/C 103/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 328, p. 19), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-443/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 215/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, 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: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 1362/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

(Case T-437/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Agriculture - Export refunds - Poultrymeat - Annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 by a judgment of the Court of Justice - Damage)

(2020/C 201/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and B. Hofstötterer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tilly-Sabco to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — VQ v ECB

(Case T-203/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Administrative pecuniary penalty imposed by the ECB on a credit institution for infringement of Article 77(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Rules for publication on the ECB’s website - Article 18(6) of Regulation No 1024/2013 and Article 132(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014)

(2020/C 313/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VQ (represented by: G. Cahill, Barrister)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, E. Yoo and M. Puidokas, acting as Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, A. Steiblytė, K. P. Wojcik and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision ECB-SSM-2018-ESSAB-4, SNC 2016-0026 of the ECB, of 14 March 2018, adopted pursuant to Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), to the extent that, first, it imposed on the applicant an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 1 600 000 and, second, it decided to publish that penalty, without anonymising the name of the applicant, on the ECB’s website.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders VQ to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

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

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T-681/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark STAYER - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Categorisation of the goods in connection with which genuine use has been proved)

(2020/C 230/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 (Case R 1940/2017-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ and Stayer Ibérica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Kaddour v Council

(Case T-510/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Damage to reputation - Determination of listing criteria)

(2020/C 399/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors, R. Blakeley, Barrister, and M. Lester QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and T. Haas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Khaled Kaddour to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Société générale v ECB

(Case T-143/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks entrusted to the ECB - Specific supervision powers of the ECB - Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital - Absence of individual examination)

(2020/C 378/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRSOG-10 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 5 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of Annex A thereto and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRSOG-10 of the ECB of 14 February 2019 and Article 3 of the annex thereto to the extent that Société génerale is concerned;

2. Orders the ECB is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — American Airlines v Commission

(Case T-430/18) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Air transport market - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Decision granting Grandfathering rights - Error of law - Concept of appropriate use)

(2021/C 53/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: American Airlines, Inc. (Fort Worth, Texas, United States) (represented by: J.-P. Poitras, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Wileur, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Franchoo, H. Leupold and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware (United States) (represented by: M. Demetriou, QC, C. Angeli and I. Giles, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 2788 final of 30 April 2018 granting Grandfathering rights to Delta Air Lines (Case M.6607 — US Airways/American Airlines).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders American Airlines, Inc. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Delta Air Lines, Inc. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Adraces v Commission

(Case T-714/18) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Framework partnership agreement - local Europe Direct information centre - Termination of the contract without specifying the ground - Legal certainty - Principle of good faith - Proportionality - Observance of the contracting party’s rights and legitimate interests - Right to sound administration)

(2021/C 35/53)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Adraces — Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Raia Centro-Sul (Vila Velha de Ródão, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio, D. Pirra Xarepe, J. Whyte and M. Barros Silva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking, first, a declaration that the ‘termination’ by the Commission of framework partnership agreement COMM/LIS/ED/2018-2020_1 is null and void and, second, an order that the Commission restore the applicant to its position prior to that ‘termination’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Adraces — Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Raia Centro-Sul to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.