ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — ViaSat v Commission

(Case T-734/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Mobile satellite system operator - Documents provided to the Commission by a candidate selected in a call for tenders - Implied and express refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Overriding public interest - Refusal of partial access)

(2020/C 175/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Marco Perpiñà, P. de Bandt and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Inmarsat Ventures Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Spontoni, B. Amory, É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, and A. Howard, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU, first, for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 10 July 2017 for access to any information provided by Inmarsat plc, Inmarsat Ventures or its subsidiaries on the occasion of their participation in the European Union call for tenders which led to the adoption of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2009 L 149, p. 65) and to any exchange of information in that regard between Inmarsat and the Commission, and, secondly, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 180 final of 11 January 2018 refusing access to that information.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to rule on the lawfulness of the European Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 10 July 2017 for access to all the information provided by Inmarsat plc, Inmarsat Ventures Ltd or its subsidiaries on the occasion of their participation in the European Union call for tenders which led to the adoption of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) and to any exchange of information in that regard between Inmarsat and the Commission;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders ViaSat, Inc., to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission and by Inmarsat Ventures;

4. Orders the Commission to bear a quarter of its own costs and to pay a quarter of the costs incurred by ViaSat and by Inmarsat Ventures.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Austrian Power Grid and Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz v ACER

(Case T-333/17) (1)

(Energy - Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER - Determination of the capacity calculation regions - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissible in part - Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 - ACER’s competence)

(2019/C 432/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) and Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: H. Kristoferitsch and S. Huber, lawyers)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Verbund AG (Vienna) (represented by: S. Polster, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. (Konstancin-Jeziorna, Poland) (represented by: M. Szambelańczyk, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions in so far as it dismisses the appeals brought by Austrian Power Grid AG and by Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Declares that ACER is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Austrian Power Grid and by Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz;

4. Declares that Austrian Power Grid and Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz are to bear three quarters of their own costs;

5. Declares that the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, Verbund AG and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — FMC v Commission

(Case T-719/17) (1)

(Plant-protection products - Active substance flupyrsulfuron-methyl - Non-renewal of inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Assessment procedure - Proposed classification of an active substance - Precautionary principle - Rights of defence - Legal certainty - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of sound administration - Legitimate expectations)

(2021/C 182/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FMC Corporation (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, I. Antypas and A. Accarain, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, G. Koleva and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1496 of 23 August 2017 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance DPX KE 459 (flupyrsulfuron methyl), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2017 L 218, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FMC Corporation to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the substitution procedure and the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement v Commission

(Case T-380/17) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Market for grey cement in Croatia - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Undertakings concerned - Relevant market - Substantial part of the internal market - Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition - Commitments - Rights of the defence - Partial referral to the national authorities)

(2020/C 414/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) and Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler, U. Soltész, M. Raible and G. Wecker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Duna-Dráva Cement Kft. (Vác, Hungary) (represented by: C. Bán and Á. Papp, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission decision C(2017) 1650 final of 5 April 2017 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders HeidelbergCement AG and Schwenk Zement KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Duna-Dráva Cement Kft. to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Scania and Others v Commission

(Case T-799/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Truck manufacturers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices in relation to the prices of trucks, the timing for the introduction of emission technologies and the passing on to customers of the costs relating to those technologies - ‘Hybrid’ procedure staggered over time - Presumption of innocence - Principle of impartiality - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Single and continuous infringement - Restriction of competition by object - Geographic scope of the infringement - Fine - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 128/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scania AB (Södertälje, Sweden), Scania CV AB (Södertälje), Scania Deutschland GmbH (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: D. Arts, F. Miotto, C. Pommiès, K. Schillemans, C. Langenius, L. Ulrichs, P. Hammarskiöld, S. Falkner and N. De Backer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 6467 final of 27 September 2017, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Scania AB, Scania CV AB and Scania Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu

(Case T-270/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the amounts advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2022/C 2/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to repay the advanced payment paid under the Grant Agreement for partners No 620108, plus accrued late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 625 793,42, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 7 February 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;

2. Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017
Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament

(Case T-421/17 RENV) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document relating to a decision refusing a third party full access to trilogue tables relating to the proposal for a regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA - Refusal to grant access - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception for the protection of court proceedings and legal advice)

(2022/C 463/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Päivi Leino-Sandberg (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and S. Schubert, lawyers)

Defendant): European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and J.C. Puffer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, H. Eklinder, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision A(2016) 15112 of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017 refusing to grant her access to Decision A(2015) 4931 of the Parliament of 8 July 2015 addressed to Mr Emilio De Capitani.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision A(2016) 15112 of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017 refusing to grant Ms Päivi Leino-Sandberg access to Decision A(2015) 4931 of the Parliament of 8 July 2015 addressed to Mr Emilio De Capitani;

2. Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Päivi Leino-Sandberg;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission

(Case T-350/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Ne bis in idem principle - State coercion - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Singapore Airlines Ltd (Singapore, Singapore), Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd (Singapore) (represented by: J. Kallaugher, J.P. Poitras, Solicitors, and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, and C. Brown, Barrister)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it relates to the applicants, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

3. Orders Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo to bear their own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (SOLIDPOWER)

(Case T-40/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark SOLIDPOWER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 93/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann, K. Middelhoff, and C. Saatkamp, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2017 (Case R 1182/2017-5), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark SOLIDPOWER.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum v EUIPO — Ferrero (KINDERPRAMS)

(Case T-115/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark KINDERPRAMS - Earlier national figurative marks Kinder - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity or similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 65/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: P. Moksa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and L. Ghedina, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 (Case R 1112/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero and Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO)

(Case T-263/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - European Union figurative trade mark MEBLO - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use)

(2019/C 139/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Meblo Trade d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje d.o.o. (Nova Gorica, Slovenia) (represented by: A. Plesničar, lawyer)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2018 (Case R 883/2017-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Meblo Trade and Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Meblo Trade d.o.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)

(Case T-427/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino and S. Hanne, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 (Case R 2603/2017-1), relating to the application for registration of the figurative mark SATISFYERMEN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr André Geske to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (WS wellpharma shop)

(Case T-403/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark WS wellpharma shop - Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 187/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Pétrequin and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Objectif Pharma (Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France) (represented by: A. Nappey, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2018 (Case R 1448/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Pharmadom and Objectif Pharma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pharmadom to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — France v Commission

(Case T-26/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by France - One-off and flat-rate financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Land Parcel Identification System - Determination of eligible areas - Maintenance of agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental condition - Landscape features - Grazable heathland - National monitoring system based on a non-compliant definition of eligible areas - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Conformity Clearance - Most likely error - Error of law)

(2019/C 148/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères and S. Horrenberger, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT)

(Case T-469/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark HEATCOAT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration)

(2019/C 230/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Battelle Memorial Institute (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth QC)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2018 (Case R 36/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign HEATCOAT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Battelle Memorial Institute to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.