ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-362/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark XENASA — Earlier EU word mark PENTASA — 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))

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA)

(Case T-362/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark XENASA — Earlier EU word mark PENTASA — 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))’

Parties

Applicant: Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented initially by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, and D. Slopek, lawyer, and subsequently by I. Fowler)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 (Case R 3264/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferring and Tillotts Pharma.

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 29 April 2016 (Case R 3264/2014-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tillotts Pharma AG;

3. Orders Ferring BV to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Case T-900/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2018 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Advantage unfairly taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2018 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

(Case T-900/16) ( 1 )

‛(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Advantage unfairly taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)’

Parties

Applicant: Casual Dreams, SLU (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Miguel Ángel López Fernández (Fuensalida, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2016 (Case R 375/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Casual Dreams and Mr López Fernández.

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 6 October 2016 (Case R 375/2016-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Casual Dreams, SLU, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

( 1 ) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB

(Case T-768/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 352/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax, G. Bassani and C. Olivier, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Central Bank Decision ECB/SSM/2016-R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/136 of 24 August 2016, taken pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) and Article 10 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), and Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision ECB/SSM/2016-R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/136 of 24 August 2016;

2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 –Klyuyev v Council

(Case T-240/16) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to reputation - Plea of illegality))

(2018/C 301/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, R. Gherson and T. Garner, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1) and, second, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was retained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as Mr Andriy Klyuyev’s name was retained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Mr Klyuyev to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application;

4. Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Klyuyev in relation to the claim for annulment in part of Decision 2017/381 and of Implementing Regulation 2017/374 made in the statement of modification.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Proof IT v EIGE

(Case T-914/16) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Request for services that were split into two lots - Management consultancy services - Maintenance and updating of statistical tools and resources - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Award criteria - Transparency - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)

(2018/C 427/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of EIGE’s decision, communicated to the applicant by the letter with reference EIGE/VL/mpD/2016/594 of 14 October 2016, rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of both lots relating to invitation to tender EIGE/2016/OPER/01 entitled ‘Framework contract on maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ and awarding the framework contract to another tenderer and, second, under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant in respect of loss of opportunity or loss of the contract itself.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Proof IT SIA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament.

(Case T-788/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Leave - Adoption of the Parliament’s new Guidelines on leave management - Individual decisions taken under the new guidelines in the interpretation services - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Interests of the service - Plea of illegality))

(2018/C 381/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Dominique De Geoffroy (Brussels, Belgium) and the 14 other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented initially by N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, and subsequently by N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of Parliament’s guidelines of 21 March 2016 on the implementation, for interpretation services, of Article 4(5) of the internal rules on leave management; secondly, of Parliament’s decision of 12 April 2016 accepting Ms Françoise Joostens’ application for leave, but including the requested days of leave within a quota of three and a half days; thirdly, of Parliament’s decision of 2 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mrs Joostens and, fourthly, of the Parliament’s decision of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — FN and Others v CEPOL

(Case T-334/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Transfer of CEPOL’s seat in Bramshill (United Kingdom) to Budapest (Hungary) - Reassignment of staff - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility of the action before the Civil Service Tribunal)

(2019/C 4/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: FN, FB, FQ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (represented by: initially by F. Bánfi and R. Woldhuis, and subsequently by R. Woldhuis and D. Schroeder, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2016, FN and Others v CEPOL (F-41/15 DISS II, EU:F:2016:70) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2016, FN and Others v CEPOL (F-41/15 DISS II) in so far as it did not declare inadmissible the claims for annulment made by FN, FP and FQ;

2. Dismisses the claims for annulment made by FN, FP and FQ before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-41/15 DISS II;

3. Dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

4. Orders FN, FP and FQ, on the one hand, and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), on the other hand, each to bear their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and to the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-344/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE - Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law action for passing-off - No likelihood of misrepresentation - Article 177(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially A. Edwards-Stuart, and subsequently T. Alkin, Barristers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, and J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 736/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paice and Mr Blackmore.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Richard Hugh Blackmore to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament

(Case T-829/16) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision declaring ineligible certain expenditure of a political party for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year - Right to good administration - Legal certainty - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Prohibition on the indirect financing of a national political party))

(2019/C 44/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Brahma v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-603/16) (1)

((Civil service - Probationary officials - Probationary period - Extension of the probationary period - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Article 34 of the Staff Regulations - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state reasons - Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations - Right to be heard - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Liability - Formal requirements - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Admissibility - Material damage - Non-material damage - Causal link))

(2019/C 35/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Zoher Brahma (Thionville, France) (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially, J. Inghelram and L. Tonini Alabiso and, subsequently, J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 17 July 2015 by which the Court of Justice of the European Union decided not to establish the applicant [as an official] and to dismiss him with effect from 31 July 2015 and of the decision of the Complaints Committee of 16 March 2016 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 17 July 2015 and, second, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in his capacity as Appointing Authority, of 17 July 2015, dismissing Mr Zoher Brahma at the end of his probationary period, with effect from 31 July 2015;

2. Annuls the decision of the Complaints Committee of 16 March 2016 rejecting the complaint against the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in his capacity as Appointing Authority, of 17 July 2015, dismissing Mr Zoher Brahma at the end of his probationary period, with effect from 31 July 2015;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 296 of 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-33/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-409/16) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Proportionality))

(2019/C 72/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, subsequently S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and finally S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125) and of the subsequent measures giving effect to that decision, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), and 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), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Ateknea Solutions Catalonia v Commission

(Case T-69/16) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Contracts concluded within the sixth framework programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) - Reimbursement of costs incurred by the applicant plus default interest - Eligible costs - Contractual liability)

(2019/C 139/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ateknea Solutions Catalonia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. Ruxió Claramunt and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Grønfeldt and M. Siekierzyńska, and subsequently by M. Siekierzyńska and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Commission pay the applicant an amount of EUR 1258 533.89 or, in the alternative, an amount of EUR 1025 845.29.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ateknea Solutions Catalonia, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
2.

Declares that the claim formulated in debit note No 3241606289 of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) of 26 May 2016 for the return by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis of part of the subsidy it received for the Minatran project, amounting to EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded up to an amount of EUR 233 611,75 and that the latter amount corresponds to eligible costs;
Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — PT v EIB

(Case T-571/16) (1)

(Civil service - Members of staff of the EIB - Reports procedure - Career evaluation report - 2014 appraisal exercise - Pre-litigation procedure - Admissibility - Right to be heard - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2019/C 220/42)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: PT (represented by: E. Nordh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by G. Nuvoli, E. Raimond, T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, and subsequently by G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, B. Wägenbaur, lawyers, and J. Currall, Barrister)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, in the first place, annulment of: (i) the EIB decision establishing the definitive version of the applicant’s staff report for the 2014 appraisal exercise; (ii) the applicant’s appraisal report for the 2014 appraisal exercise; (iii) the EIB decisions, for 2015, neither to promote him, grant him an individual bonus nor increase his salary by 1.20% and; in the second place, compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls PT’s appraisal report for the 2014 appraisal exercise;

2. Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) to pay PT the sum of EUR 2 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with default interest from the date of delivery of the present judgment at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 points;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-145/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).