ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission

(Case T-198/17) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Actibio contract concluded within the context of the seventh framework programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests))

(2019/C 103/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, A. Kyratsou and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note no 3241615335 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse the sum of EUR 38 241 of the payment received for a study on the Actibio project is unfounded in the amount of EUR 9 353,56, and, second, that that sum corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2019 — Meesenburg Großhandel v EUIPO (Triotherm+)

(Case T-760/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Triotherm+ - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard)

(2019/C 155/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meesenburg Großhandel KG (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Freiherr von Oldershausen, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 (Case R 1786/2016-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Triotherm+ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Meesenburg Großhandel KG to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Mouldpro v EUIPO — Wenz Kunststoff (MOULDPRO)

(Case T-796/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MOULDPRO - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative grounds for invalidity - Article 60(1)(b) and Article 8(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 60(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 122/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mouldpro ApS (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: W Rebernik, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (Lüdenscheid, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2017 (Case R 2153/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mouldpro and Wenz Kunststoff.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mouldpro ApS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

(Case T-225/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark Bio proof ADAPTA - Declaration of partial invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

(2019/C 187/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 311/2016-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-480/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - One-off and flat-rate financial corrections - Cross compliance - Monitoring of statutory management requirements - Risk analysis - Assessment of the financial loss - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)

(2019/C 172/40)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and Α. Vassilopoulou, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 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 165, p. 37), in so far as it imposes on the Hellenic Republic, following the investigation under reference XC/2014/002/GR, one-off and flat-rate financial corrections amounting in total to EUR 1182 054.17 because of weaknesses in the application of cross compliance (EAGF and EAFRD).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Bank Tejarat v Council

(Case T-37/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following its inclusion and re-inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2019/C 230/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, T. Otty QC, R. Blakeley, V. Zaiwalla, H. Leith, Barristers, and T. de la Mare QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and J. Norris, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bank Tejarat to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-51/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Fruit and vegetable sector - Aid to producer groups - Expenditure effected by Poland - Weaknesses in key controls - Checks on recognition plans and on recognition criteria - Checks on applications for aid - Economic consistency - Reasonableness of expenditure - Systemic weakness - Risk to EAGF - Flat rate corrections of 25 %)

(2019/C 187/69)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 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) (JO 2016, L 312, p. 26) concerning the flat rate corrections applied in respect of the Republic of Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

3. Orders the Commission to pay one quarter of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-590/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 726 942,81;

2. Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Bonnafous v EACEA

(Case T-61/17) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Normal probationary conditions - Psychological harassment - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Liability)

(2019/C 255/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (represented by H. Monet and V. Kasparian, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the dismissal decision of 14 November 2016 and of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 2 June 2017, taken by the EACEA, and second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Laurence Bonnafous to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Steifer v EESC

(Case T-331/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Pension entitlement acquired before entry into service of the EU - Transfer to the EU scheme - Grant of additional seniority - Reimbursement of the amount of pension entitlement not taken into account in the scheme for the calculation of annuities of pension of the EU - No new and substantial facts - No excusable error - Liability - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 328/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Guy Steifer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A Lucas and M. Bertha, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino and L. Camarena Januzec, acting and Agents, assisted by M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, to annul the decision of 21 October 2002 of the Director of Human and Financial Resources of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request of 2 October 2002 for reimbursement, together with applicable interest, of the part of his Belgian pension rights not credited on transfer to the EU pension scheme and Decision No 360/03 A of that Director of 15 December 2003 fixing the applicant’s entitlement to a retirement pension, second, to order the EESC to reimburse the applicant the amount of the periodic annuity payments paid by the Belgian National Pensions Office to the EESC since 1 January 2004 as a result of the transfer of his pension rights and to reimburse the applicant each month the amount of the periodic annuity payments to be paid in the future and, third, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of one of the grounds of that decision by which the Director wrongly informed him that he had no right to a Belgian pension.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Guy Steifer to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA

(Case T-185/17) (1)

(REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Inclusion in that list of Bisphenol A as a substance which is toxic for reproduction - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006)

(2019/C 295/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, É. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and N. Herbatschek, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented initially by: D. Colas, J. Traband and B. Fodda and subsequently by D. Colas, J. Traband and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents), ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of ECHA’s decision of 4 January 2017 (ED/01/2017) by which Bisphenol A was included in the list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3), as referred to in Article 59(1) of that regulation, on the ground that that substance had been identified as toxic for reproduction within the meaning of Article 57(c) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PlasticsEurope to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — ICL-IP Terneuzen and ICL Europe Coöperatief v Commission

(Case T-610/17) (1)

(REACH - Substances subject to authorisation - Inclusion of 1-bromoproprane (nPB) in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 - Volumes - Registration dossier - Data - Substance grouping - Principle of sound administration - Right to conduct business and pursue a trade freely - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2019/C 406/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ICL-IP Terneuzen, BV (Terneuzen, Netherlands) and ICL Europe Coöperatief UA (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

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

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/999 of 13 June 2017 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2017 L 150, p. 7), in so far as it includes 1-bromopropane (nPB) in that annex.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ICL-IP Terneuzen, BV and ICL Europe Coöperatief UA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear its own costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FV v Council

(Case T-153/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Staff reports - 2014 and 2015 appraisal exercises - Interest in bringing proceedings - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2019/C 399/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FV (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the applicant’s staff reports for the periods from 1 January to 31 December 2014 and from 1 January to 31 December 2015, which were adopted definitively on 5 December 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders FV to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission

(Case T-240/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for lead-acid car battery recycling - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Fines - Value of purchases - Point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Evidence of the infringement - Concept of single or repeated infringement - Duration of the infringement - Interruption of participation in the infringement - Restriction of competition by object - Mitigating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2020/C 10/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Campine NV (Beerse, Belgium) and Campine Recycling NV (Beerse) (represented by: C. Verdonck, S. De Cock, Q. Silvestre and B. Gielen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. van Schaik, S. Baches Opi and M. Farley, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final of 8 February 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling), in so far as it concerns the applicants, or, in the alternative, cancellation or a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final of 8 February 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling) in so far as it refers to the period from 10 February 2010 to 10 January 2011 and the period from 4 April 2011 to 7 March 2012, to the extent that it concerns Campine NV and Campine Recycling NV;

2. Annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2017) 900 final in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on Campine and Campine Recycling at EUR 8 158 000;

3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Campine and Campine Recycling in Article 2 of Decision C(2017) 900 final at EUR 4 275 648;

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5. Orders Campine and Campine Recycling to bear two thirds of their own costs;

6. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of Campine and Campine Recycling.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission

(Case T-217/17) (1)

(State aid - Market for electricity generated from renewable sources - Measures setting a minimum purchase price for electricity generated from renewable energy sources or granting a bonus to producers of that electricity - Amendment of the initial measures - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination stage - Article 107, paragraph 3(c) TFEU - Beneficiaries of the aid and shareholders of the beneficiaries - Legitimate expectations - State resources - Commission’s competence to examine the compatibility of the measures with other provisions of EU law than State aid)

(2019/C 413/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) and the 27 other applicants whose names appear in the Annex to the Judgment (represented by: A. Reuter, H. Wendt, C. Bürger, T. Christner, W. Schumacher, A. Compes and T. Herbold, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, P. Němečková and T. Maxian-Rusche, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller and O. Serdula and L. Dvořáková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: A. Gavela Llopis, and subsequently by A. Rubio González and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), Republic of Cyprus (represented by: E. Symeonidou and E. Zachariadou, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová and M. Kianička, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 7827 final of 28 November 2016 on State aid SA.40171 (2015/NN), concerning the promotion of electricity production from renewable energy sources, a summary of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2017 C 69, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and the other applicants whose names are included in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Republic of Spain, the Republic of Cyprus and the Slovak Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.