ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-241/17) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 - Temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following a deadly enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak - Non-harvesting operations - Extent of the compensation in favour of producers who performed such operations - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 16/50)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Pawlicka, K. Straś and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 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 39, p. 12), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing expenditure in the amount of EUR 4 438 056,66 incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Fernández González v Commission

(Case T-162/17 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Vacancy notice relating to a temporary agent post falling under Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Rejection of application - Plea of illegality - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Liability - Loss of opportunity))

(2018/C 445/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elia Fernández González (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirchfeld and É. Boigelot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroek and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision of 14 November 2014 rejecting the applicant’s application for the temporary agent post that is the subject of vacancy notice COM/2014/2036 and annulment of the decision of 22 May 2015 rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint and, second, compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 14 November 2014 rejecting the application of Ms Fernández González for the temporary agent post that is the subject of vacancy notice COM/2014/2036;

2. Orders the Commission to pay to Ms Fernández González the amount of EUR 12 000 plus default interest from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the payment is made at an annual rate equal to the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for principal refinancing operations, increased by 2 percentage points;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under the number F-121/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)

(Case T-683/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2086/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENOAK)

(Case T-339/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark SEVENOAK - Earlier international figurative mark 7seven - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 35/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 (Case R 1326/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seven and Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2017 (Case R 1326/2016-1);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, eight tenths of the costs incurred by Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd;

4. Orders Seven SpA to bear, in addition to its own costs, a tenth of the costs incurred by Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial;

5. Orders Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial to bear a tenth of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB)

(Case T-665/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CCB - Earlier EU figurative mark CB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Second sentence of Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now second sentence of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 72/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: China Construction Bank Corp. (Beijing, China) (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Gibbs, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Groupement des cartes bancaires (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2265/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Groupement des cartes bancaires and China Construction Bank.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders China Construction Bank Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen)

(Case T-682/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark ‘khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2085/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — TP v Commission

(Case T-464/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Deduction from salary - Maintenance awarded by a national court in the context of divorce proceedings - Sincere cooperation with the national courts - Circumscribed powers - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour - Rule of correspondence - Act adversely affecting a person - Claim for compensation - Compliance with the pre-litigation procedure))

(2019/C 93/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: TP (represented by: W. Limuti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission to make a monthly deduction from the applicant’s salary in respect of maintenance to be paid to his ex-wife pursuant to the ruling of an Italian court and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP)

(Case T-274/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MONSTER DIP - Earlier EU word and figurative marks and unregistered sign used in the course of trade, all including the word element ‘monster’ - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No likelihood of misleading association - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No likelihood of dilution of the reputation of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 82/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marco Bösel (Bad Fallingbostel, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2016 (Case R 1062/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Marco Bösel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE)

(Case T-800/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark FIGHT LIFE - Earlier EU word mark FIGHT FOR LIFE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Brown Street Holdings Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: initially C. Hufnagel, M. Kleespies, J. Clayton-Chen and A. Bender, and subsequently M. Kleespies and A. Bender, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Enesan AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 36/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Brown Street Holdings and Enesan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 September 2017 (Case R 36/2017-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition against the application for registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods in Class 5 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;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Brown Street Holdings Ltd.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Duym v Council

(Case T-549/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Appointment to a post of head of unit - Vacancy notice - Rejection of an application - Appointment of another candidate - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of non-discrimination))

(2019/C 103/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Frederik Duym (Oostende, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the decision of the advisory selection board, communicated to the applicant by email of 7 October 2016, rejecting his application in the context of the selection procedure for the Head of the Dutch Language Unit for the Council’s Translation Service, as well as the subsequent decision of the appointing authority of the Council of 20 December 2016 to appoint Ms A. to the post.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE

(Case T-450/17) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of a service for the implementation of a study on female genital mutilation - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Coherence between comments and the numerical score - Non-contractual liability)

(2019/C 139/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurosupport — Fineurop support Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

Re:

Application (i) under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the EIGE of 8 May 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in procurement procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 and the decisions selecting as successful the tender submitted by Company Y and awarding that contract to it, (ii) under Article 268 TFEU for an award of damages in respect of those decisions and (iii) in the alternative, for compensation for irregularities in the award of that contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the decisions of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) of 8 May 2017 adopting the tender submitted by Company Y in the context of the EIGE/2017/OPER/04 tender procedure and awarding it that contract;

2. Annuls the decision of the EIGE of 8 May 2017 rejecting the tender which Eurosupport — Fineurop support Srl had submitted in the context of that procedure;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Eurosupport — Fineurop support to bear 25 % of its own costs and the EIGE to bear its own costs and to pay 75 % of the costs incurred by Eurosupport — Fineurop support.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2019 — Serendipity and Others v EUIPO — CKL Holdings (CHIARA FERRAGNI)

(Case T-647/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CHIARA FERRAGNI - Earlier Benelux word mark Chiara - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 112/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Serendipity Srl (Milan, Italy), Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy) and Pasquale Morgese (Barletta) (represented by: C. Volpi, L. Aliotta and F. Garbagnati Lo Iacono, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CKL Holdings NV (Bussum, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 July 2017 (Case R 2444/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, CKL Holdings and, on the other hand, Serendipity and Messrs Morgese.

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 17 July 2017 (Case R 2444/2016-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Serendipity Srl, Mr Giuseppe Morgese and Mr Pasquale Morgese.

(1) OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 –Hautala and Others v EFSA

(Case T-329/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to carcinogenicity studies conducted in connection with the renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Concept of information relating to emissions into the environment)

(2019/C 148/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Hautala (Finland), Benedek Jávor (Hungary), Michèle Rivasi (France), Bart Staes (Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, J. Tarazona, F. Volpi and B. Vagenende, acting as Agents, assisted by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre (Denmark), (represented by: C. Mereu, lawyer); and Monsanto Europe (Antwerp, Belgium); Monsanto Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented initially by M. Pittie, P. Honoré and N. Callens, and subsequently by P. Honoré, N. Callens and A. Helfer, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of the EFSA decision of 14 March 2017 partially refusing access to twelve carcinogenicity studies on the active substance glyphosate, conducted in connection with the procedure for renewing the approval of that active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 14 March 2017, in so far as EFSA refused access to the parts ‘material, experimental conditions and methods’ and ‘results and discussion’ of 12 carcinogenicity studies on the active substance glyphosate;

2. Orders EFSA to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Ms Heidi Hautala, Ms Michèle Rivasi, Mr Benedek Jávor and Mr Bart Staes;

3. Orders Cheminova A/S, Monsanto Europe and Monsanto Company to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2019 — Fleig v EEAS

(Case T-492/17) (1)

(Civil Service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Termination with notice - Grounds for termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff - Principle of sound administration - Articles 30 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Procedural issue - Publication on the Internet of documents included in the file relating to the proceedings before the General Court - Article 17 of the Staff Regulations)

(2019/C 172/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stephan Fleig (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 19 September 2016 by which the director of the ‘Human Resources’ Directorate of the EEAS, acting in his capacity as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, terminated the applicant’s employment contract with effect from 19 June 2017 and, secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered following that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Stephan Fleig to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.