ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2018 –

Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G. B. Morgagni v Commission

(Case T‑172/16)

(State aid — Reduced taxes and contributions due from undertakings located in areas affected by natural disasters occurring in Italy — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Potential beneficiary as the holder of an acquired right — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations)

1. Actions for annulment—Jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Form of order seeking to obtain an EU-law compatible interpretation of a Union measure—Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) and (3) TFEU; Commission Decision 2016/195, Art. 4(5)) (see paras 37-39)

2. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Whether directly concerned—Criteria (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 57)

3. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Person individually affected by a measure general in character—Conditions—Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme—Action brought by an undertaking which did not receive individual aid granted under the scheme but having an acquired right to benefit from the measure at issue—Admissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 62-66, 71, 74-79)

4. EU law—Principles—Equal treatment—Meaning—Limits (see para. 106)

Re:

Principally, an application seeking ‘an EU-law-compatible interpretation’ of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/195 of 14 August 2015 on State aid measures SA.33083 (12/C) (ex 12/NN) implemented by Italy providing for reduced taxes and contributions linked to natural disasters (all sectors except agriculture) and SA.35083 (12/C) (ex 12/NN), implemented by Italy providing for reduced taxes and contributions linked to the earthquake in Abruzzo in 2009 (all sectors except agriculture) (OJ 2016 L 43, p. 1) and, in the alternative, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2018 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission

(Case T‑468/16)

(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages — Partial refusal of access — Declaration by the Commission that the documents do not exist — Presumption of lawfulness — Error of law — Obligation to state reasons)

1. Judicial proceedings—Production of evidence—Time-limit—Evidence lodged out of time—Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85(3)) (see para. 20)

2. Judicial proceedings—Measures of inquiry—Hearing of witnesses—Discretion of the Courts of the Union—Duties of the person making the request (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85(3)) (see paras 21, 22)

3. EU institutions—Right of public access to documents—Regulation No 1049/2001—Refusal of access to a document on the ground that it does not exist or is not held by the institution concerned—Presumption of non-existence based on the statement to that effect by the institution concerned—Simple presumption rebuttable on the basis of relevant and consistent evidence (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 2(3)) (see paras 34-37)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3714 final of 10 June 2016 relating to a request for access, made by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), to certain documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
European Parliament—Rules on costs and indemnities of MEPs—Recovery of sums unduly paid—Decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament—Undermining of the independence of the Member concerned—None

(Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament, Art. 68)

(see paras 49-52, 54)
Community designs—Ground for invalidity—No individual character—Disclosure by the designer or his successor in title—Proof of the disclosure

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b), 7(1) and 65(1); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(v) and (vi))

(see paras 25-28)
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO—Examination by the Board of Appeal—Scope—Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose—Account taken—Discretion of the Board of Appeal—New or supplementary evidence

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 50(1), third para.)

(see paras 52-54)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 –

Lithuania v Commission

(Case T‑205/16)

(Cohesion Fund — Expenditure excluded from financing — Technical support for Cohesion Fund management in Lithuania — VAT — Article 11(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 16/2003 — Reduction of financial assistance)

Economic, social and territorial cohesion—Structural assistance—European Union funding—Eligible expenses—Value added tax—Included—Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1164/94, Art. 7(4); Commission Regulation No 16/2003, Art 11(1) and (3))

(see paras 42-48)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 969 final of 23 February 2016, concerning the reduction in support from the Cohesion Fund for the project ‘Technical assistance for Cohesion Fund management in the Republic of Lithuania’, in so far as that decision provides for a reduction in support in the amount of EUR 137 864.61 corresponding to VAT expenses.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 969 final of 23 February 2016, concerning the reduction in support from the Cohesion Fund for the project ‘Technical assistance for Cohesion Fund management in the Republic of Lithuania’, in so far as that decision provides for a reduction in support in the amount of EUR 137 864.61 corresponding to VAT expenses;.
Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Account taken of previous experience — Examination of the specific tasks performed by the member of the contract staff — Discretion of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Manifest error of assessment — Meaning — Judicial review — Limits

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 79(2) and 89(1))

(see paras 50-54)
European Union public contracts — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — The most economically advantageous tender — Award criteria — Observance of the principle of equal treatment of tenderers and of the principle of transparency — Amendment of the criteria during the procedure — Not permissible — Application of the weighting rules or sub-criteria not previously intended for tenderers — Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Arts 102(1) and 105(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 149)

(see paras 56-61)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 –

Tataram v Commission

(Case T‑546/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Adjustment of remuneration — Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 — Salary slip — Time-limit for bringing an action — Out of time — Inadmissibility)

1. Plea of illegality — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — General measure providing the basis of the contested decision — Admissibility — Conditions (Arts 263, second para. TFEU, 270 TFEU and 277 TFEU) (see paras 32, 33, 45, 46, 49)

2. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Salary statement — Inclusion normally allowed for the purpose of exercising right of action (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) (see para. 36)

3. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Salary or pension statement reflecting a decision the subject-matter of which is purely financial — Included — Salary or pension statement merely confirmative of prior administrative decisions — Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) (see paras 37, 38)

4. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90) (see para. 39)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s remuneration in respect of May 2014, as given specific expression in the salary slip for that month sent to her on 15 May 2014, which is the first salary slip to apply Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Marina Tataram to pay the costs;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2018 –

Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission

(Case T‑79/16)

(State aid — Aid scheme relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination stage — No formal investigation procedure — Locus standi — Notion of interested party — Admissibility — Infringement of procedural rights — Serious difficulties — Substantial effect on the competitive position of the competing undertakings)

1. State aid — Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Preliminary review and main review — Compatibility of the aid with the common market — Difficulties of assessment — Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure — Meaning — Serious difficulties — Objective nature — Duration of the preliminary procedure no able to show in itself the existence of such difficulties — Insufficiency or incompleteness of the examination by the Commission at the time of the preliminary investigation procedure Elements such as to show the existence of serious difficulties (Art. 108(2) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 4(3)) (see paras 49, 88-95, 100, 101, 107, 108, 127, 140)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision finding State aid compatible with the internal market without opening the formal investigation procedure — Action by interested parties within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU — Action designed to safeguard the procedural rights of the persons concerned — Action by a competing undertaking having seen its market position affected by the aid — Admissibility (Arts 108(2) and (3) and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 1(h) and 4(3)) (see paras 50-73)

3. Actions for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Natural or legal persons — Action brought by several applicants against the same decision — Capacity to act of one of them — Admissibility of the action as a whole (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 75, 76)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land, a summary of which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2006 C 9, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I;
Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Limits — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Obligation to take into account the appraisal report — None

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 43, first para.; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Arts 2(a), 8, 14(3) and 15(2))

(see paras 54-57, 62-64, 67)
Case T‑603/16

(publication by extracts)

Zoher Brahma

v

Court of Justice of the European Union

(Civil service — Probationers — Probationary period — Extension of the probationary period — Dismissal after 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 — Responsibility — Formal requirements — Rule of correspondence between complaint and action — Admissibility — Material harm — Non-material damage — Causal link)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber), 22 November 2018

Officials — Recruitment — Probationary period — Period under the Staff Regulations — Extension of the probationary period beyond 15 months — Precluded

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 34(1), second para.)

Under the terms of the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of the Staff Regulations, the total length of the probationary period must in no circumstances exceed 15 months. According to a literal interpretation of that provision, there is nothing that prevents a probationer from completing his duties during his probationary period which can justify extending the probationary period beyond 15 months from the date of starting that probationary period. Neither the context nor the objectives pursued by the Staff Regulations, which must be considered when interpreting one of its provisions, invalidate that interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of the Staff Regulations. As regards the objective pursued by the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of the Staff Regulations, setting a maximum length for the probationary period seeks, on the one hand, to limit, in the interests of both the administration and the probationer, the period during which the employment relationship is affected by lack of security and, on the other, to determine the period during which the official’s conduct must be assessed by the appointing authority. That objective confirms the aforementioned interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of the Staff Regulations. By setting, independently of the reasons preventing the probationer from performing his duties, the maximum duration of his probationary period at 15 months — from the start thereof — the Staff Regulations set an absolute limit in time, in the interest of legal certainty, for the insecure employment relationship between the probationer and the administration and determines the maximum duration of the probationary period which may be taken into account by the appointing authority when assessing the probationer’s conduct.

(see paras 189-192)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 May 2019 –

QH v Parliament

(Case T‑748/16)

(Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Decision rejecting the request for assistance — Principles of objectivity and impartiality — Right to good administration — Right to be heard)

1. Officials — Principles — Rights of defence — Request for assistance regarding alleged psychological harassment — Duty of the administration to hear the person who submitted that request — Scope — Infringement — Consequences (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41 and 48; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 12a and 24) (see paras 47-54, 60-62)

2. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Injury — Causal link — Cumulative conditions (see para. 72)

3. Actions brought by officials — Actions for damages — Annulment of the illegal act in dispute — Non-material harm capable of being separated from the illegality and incapable of being fully compensated for by the annulment — Burden of proof (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see paras 73-76)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 January 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant on 11 December 2014 and the decision of 12 July 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment rejected the applicant’s claim and, secondly, compensation for the loss he allegedly suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of that authority when processing that request for assistance.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the European Parliament’s decision of 26 January 2016 rejecting his request for assistance, as confirmed by the decision of 12 July 2016 rejecting his claim;

2. Dismisses the claim as to the remainder;
Case T‑165/16

(publication by extracts)

Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd,

and

Airport Marketing Services Ltd

v

European Commission

(State aid — Agreements concluded with the airline Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services — Airport services — Marketing services — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Notion of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Access to the file — Right to be heard)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition), 13 December 2018

State aid — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — No possibility of the aid beneficiary relying on rights as extensive as rights of the defence as such — Right of the aid beneficiary to be involved in the procedure to the extent appropriate — Scope (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41)

State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Distinction between the requirement for selectivity and the concomitant detection of an economic advantage and between an aid scheme and individual aid — Individual aid– Airport and marketing services agreements resulting in an advantage for an airline — Presumption of selectivity — Need to compare the beneficiary with other operators in a comparable factual and legal situation — None (Art. 107(1) TFEU)

State aid — Concept — Assessment in accordance with the private investor test — Complex evaluation of economic matters — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 107(1) TFEU)

State aid — Concept — Assessment in accordance with the private investor test — Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context — No hierarchy between the comparative analysis method and the other assessment methods (Art. 107(1) TFEU)

State aid — Concept — Assessment in accordance with the private investor test — Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context — Complex set of agreements formed by airport and marketing services agreements — Analysis of the profitability of that complex set of agreements (Art. 107(1) TFEU)

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid — Examination of the private investor test — Requirement for specific reasoning in respect of each technical choice or element for which figures are given — None (Art. 296 TFEU)
Judicial proceedings — Application to set aside judgment — Condition of proof of a legitimate reason for the delay in filing the defence — None

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Art. 41; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 166(2))

(see paras 53-57)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 –

L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)

(Case T‑181/16 RENV)

( EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — 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 ))

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38, 43, 77, 81, 82, 84, 87, 89)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 60)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment only on the basis of the dominant element of a complex mark — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 45, 49, 58)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 55)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark MASTER PRECISE and figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 63, 66, 67, 76, 91)

6. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 90)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2911/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – No clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on – Arguments grouped together in the form of a general discussion – Whether permissible

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 71-73)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Analogous requirements with regard to grounds in support of a plea — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 122, 186-188, 236, 255, 273, 304, 326)