ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-110/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 452/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Giullerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Célestin Kanyama to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA)

(Case T-636/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark JUVÉDERM VOLUMA - Late payment of the appeal fee - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Article 101(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restitutio in integrum)

(2021/C 481/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2020 (Case R 1016/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dermavita Company and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Asian Gear v EUIPO — Multimox (Scooter)

(Case T-685/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a scooter - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Disclosure of the earlier design - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2021/C 471/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Asian Gear BV (Pijnacker, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Gravendeel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Multimox Holding BV (Rijen, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2020 (Case R 1042/2018-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Asian Gear and Multimox Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Asian Gear BV to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Multimox Holding BV for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — IP v Commission

(Case T-121/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - OLAF investigation - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Disciplinary penalty - Termination of contract without notice - Article 10(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Reoffending - Article 27 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Decision granting a request that no mention of a previous penalty remain in the personal file - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Sanction cannot be enforced or invoked against the official if no mention of it remains in the personal file)

(2021/C 490/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IP (represented by: L. Levi, S. Rodrigues and J. Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission's decision of 21 August 2019 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of termination without notice of his employment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 21 August 2019 imposing on IP the disciplinary penalty of termination without notice of his employment;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (INSTINCT)

(Case T-1/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark INSTINCT - No genuine use of the trade mark - Extent of use - Overall assessment of the evidence - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 490/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebé Marin, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Newman, E. Yates, J.-M. Fearnley, Solicitors, and J. Moss, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2019 (Case R 178/2019-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Natural Instinct and M.I. Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Selmikeit & Giczella v EUIPO — Boehmert & Boehmert (HALLOWIENER)

(Case T-500/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark HALLOWIENER - No genuine use - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 2/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH (Osterode, Germany) (represented by: S. Keute, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Boehmert & Boehmert Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB — Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: U. Ulrich, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2020 (Case R 1893/2019-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Boehmert & Boehmert Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB — Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte and Selmikeit & Giczella.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (Dormillo)

(Case T-597/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Dormillo - Earlier EU figurative mark DORMILON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 502/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: W. Zürbig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Getafe, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 (Case R 2847/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Flex Equipos de Descanso and Roller.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Roller GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — KV v Commission

(Case T-430/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the selection board to exclude the applicant from the next stage of the competition - Eligibility criterion related to professional experience - Compliance of the criterion used by the selection board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 24/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: KV (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment first, of the decision of the selection board of 19 September 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for reconsideration of the decision not to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, second, of the decision of the appointing authority of 31 March 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the selection board of 19 September 2019 rejecting the request for review of KV’s exclusion from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Phi Group v EUIPO — Gruppo Cadoro (REDELLO)

(Case T-532/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark REDELLO - Earlier EU figurative mark CADELLO 88 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 11/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Phi Group GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Campolini and L. Bidaine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, V. Ruzek, and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gruppo Cadoro GmbH (Eglisau, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 (Case R 2677/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Gruppo Cadoro and Phi Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Phi Group GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-619/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Annual and interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 84/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ, FL, FM, FN, FP (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 April and 1 July 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FJ, FL, FM, FN and FP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Ruiz-Ruiz v Commission

(Case T-293/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Admission criterion related to professional experience - Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 51/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vanesa Ruiz-Ruiz (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Selection Board of 20 September 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for review of the decision not to admit her to the next phase of the open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, secondly, of the decision of the appointing authority of 7 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 20 September 2019 refusing the request for review of Ms Vanesa Ruiz-Ruiz’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 –Verelst v Council

(Case T-647/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 - Appointment of the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Belgium - Rules applicable to the appointment of the European Prosecutors)

(2022/C 119/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Michel Verelst (Éghezée, Belgium) (represented by: C. Molitor, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak, R. Meyer and K. Kouri, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, M. Van Regemorter and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1117 of 27 July 2020 appointing the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2020 L 244, p. 18) in so far as it appoints Mr Yves Van Den Berge as a European Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and rejects the candidacy of the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Jean-Michel Verelst to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Magic Box Int. Toys v EUIPO — KMA Concepts (SUPERZINGS)

(Case T-549/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SUPERZINGS - Earlier international figurative mark ZiNG - 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))

(2022/C 95/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Magic Box Int. Toys SLU (Sant Cugat del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo and E. López Leiva, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: KMA Concepts Ltd. (Mahé, Seychelles) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll and I. Osinaga Lozano, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2020 (Case R 2511/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between KMA Concepts and Magic Box Int. Toys.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Magic Box Int. Toys SLU to bear its owns costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by KMA Concepts Ltd.

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Zardini v Commission

(Case T-511/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Criterion to assess professional experience - Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 198/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Zardini (Marano di Valpollicella, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of, first, the decision of the Selection Board of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the refusal to admit the applicant to the next phase of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19, and, second, the decision of the appointing authority of 7 May 2020 rejecting the complaint of the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the exclusion of Mr Alessandro Zardini from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Huhtamaki v Commission

(Case T-134/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a State aid investigation - Advance tax agreements - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of confidentiality - Not irrebuttable - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 171/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Huhtamaki Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Struys and F. Pili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 9417 final of 18 December 2019 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents relating to a State aid investigation made by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2019) 9417 final of 18 December 2019 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents relating to a State aid investigation made by Huhtamaki Sàrl pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2022 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-151/20) (1)

(Own resources of the European Union - Financial liability of a Member State - Import duties - Payment to the Commission of amounts corresponding to non-recovered own resources - Action based on unjust enrichment of the European Union - Obligations of a Member State with regard to own resources - Obligation to lodge a security - Exemption from making available amounts corresponding to established entitlements declared irrecoverable)

(2022/C 276/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Materne and P. Němečková, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: S. Baeyens and J.-C. Halleux, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent).

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking repayment of the sum of 40 482 255 Czech koruny (CZK) paid in respect of the European Union’s own resources.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Upholds the Czech Republic’s action in so far as it concerns the repayment by the European Commission of the sum of 17 828 399,66 Czech koruny (CZK) paid in respect of the European Union’s own resources;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — KU v EEAS

(Case T-425/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - EEAS staff - Psychological harassment - Administrative investigation - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Reasonable time - Liability)

(2022/C 237/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KU (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spáč, G. Pasqualetti and E. Orgován, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 17 September 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance and, secondly, compensation for the harm which she claims to have suffered as a result of psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders KU to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Munich v EUIPO — Tone Watch (MUNICH10A.T.M.)

(Case T-502/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union word mark MUNICH10A.T.M. - Earlier EU and national figurative marks MUNICH - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods and services - No aesthetic complementarity - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rights of the defence)

(2022/C 311/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Munich, SL (La Torre de Claramunt, Spain) (represented by: M. del Mar Guix Vilanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Acting as agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tone Watch, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. López Martínez, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 March 2020 (case R 2472/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between the applicant and the intervener.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Munich, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.