ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2016 —

Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO)

(Case T‑761/14)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark MANGO — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Mark devoid of distinctive character in part of the Union — Acquisition of distinctive character in that same part — Requirement for acquisition before the date on which the trade mark application was lodged (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 16)

2. Community trade mark — Definition — 3. fusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 17, 18)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(2)) (see para. 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2337/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Body Cosmetics International GmbH and Consolidated Artists BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 —

Musso v Parliament

(Joined Cases T‑589/14 and T‑772/14)

‛Emoluments of Members of the Parliament — Old-age pension — Obligation for French Members to claim their pension rights from national schemes — Rule against overlapping — Implementing measures for the Statute for Members — Decision adopted at the conclusion of the complaints procedure — Debit note — Decision to suspend payment of the pension — Adversarial principle — Reasonable period — Obligation to state reasons’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Pleas — Alteration once proceedings have been started — Condition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(e)) (see paras 30, 31)

2. EU law — Principles — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Scope — No obligation to place the person concerned in a position to state his views orally (see para. 59)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 71)

4. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Error of assessment — Distinction (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see para. 78)

5. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Plea raised for the first time at the hearing — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1)) (see para. 80)

6. EU budget — Financial regulation — Recovery of debts from third parties — Request for reimbursement in the form of a debit note — Notification period — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Criteria for assessment — Infringement — Consequences (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 81; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 73a) (see paras 90-92, 96, 103, 104, 128)

7. EU law — Principles — Vested rights — Limits — Decision fixing the pension rights of an MEP and demanding repayment of overpaid pension — No acquired rights (European Parliament Decision 2005/684) (see paras 117, 118)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 26 June 2014 confirming the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 17 October 2011 which determined the monthly amount of pension rights, taking into account the sums received from two French pension schemes, and by which recovery of EUR 127065.19 was determined and, second, application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 22 September 2014.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
When a public creditor grants payment facilities in respect of a debt payable to it by an undertaking, such payment facilities constitute state aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU where, taking account of the significance of the economic advantage thereby granted, the recipient undertaking would manifestly not have obtained comparable facilities from a private creditor in a situation as close as possible to that of the public creditor and seeking to recover sums due to it by a debtor in financial difficulty. That assessment is made, in principle, by applying the private creditor test, which, where applicable, is among the factors which the Commission is required to take into account for the purposes of establishing whether such aid exists. It is therefore for the Commission to carry out an overall assessment, taking into account all relevant evidence in the case enabling it to determine whether the recipient undertaking would manifestly not have been able to obtain comparable facilities from such a private creditor. In that regard, all information liable to have a significant influence on the decision-making process of a normally prudent and diligent private creditor, in a situation as close as possible to that of the public creditor and seeking to recover sums due to it by a debtor experiencing difficulty in making the payments, must be regarded as being relevant.

In a case where a normally prudent and diligent private creditor in a situation as close as possible to that of the public creditor has the choice between several procedures for the purposes of recovering the sums owed to it, it must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of each of those procedures in order to identify the more advantageous alternative. Its decision-making process, influenced by a number of factors, including the creditor’s status as the holder of a secured, preferential or ordinary claim, the nature and extent of any security it may hold, its assessment of the chances of the firm being restored to viability, the amount it would receive in the event of liquidation, and the risks of seeing its losses increase still further, is also liable to be influenced significantly by the duration of the procedures, postponing the recovery of the sums due and thus potentially affecting, in the case of lengthy procedures, inter alia, their value.

In such a case, therefore, the Commission must determine whether, taking those factors into account, for the purposes of obtaining payment of the sums due to it, such a private creditor would clearly not have accepted the proposed arrangement and must compare, by reference to the interests of a private creditor, the advantages and disadvantages of each of the said procedures, the burden of proof that the conditions of the private creditor test have been fulfilled being borne by the Commission.

(see paras 93, 94, 131-139, 269, 280)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 —

Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

(Case T‑775/14)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion’

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact which have not been raised previously before the departments of EUIPO — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 15)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 49, 50, 56)

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 — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30)

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 — Figurative mark ABTRONIC and word mark TRONIC (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 55-58)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (see paras 59, 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 2060/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2016 —

Trioplast Industrier v Commission

(Case T‑669/14)

‛Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in industrial plastic bags — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Action for damages — Default interest — Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence — Lack of legal basis — Article 266 TFEU — Causal link’

1. Competition — Fines — Amount — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction — Scope — Limit — No jurisdiction to impose a fine legally distinct from that imposed by the Commission (Art. 261 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31) (see paras 57-59)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Commission letter calling upon the addressee to pay default interest due on a fine amended by the General Court — Letter confirming conditions for suspension of payment of the fine during the inter partes procedure — Simple calculation of the precise amount of interest capable of being claimed from the applicant — Exclusion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 63-76, 78)

3. EU law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for annulment against measures not producing binding legal effects inadmissible — Possibility of parties challenging such measures by an action in non-contractual liability of the Union (Arts 263 TFEU, 299, fourth para., TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 77)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 92-98)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Concept — Default interest and bank guarantee costs arising from an undertaking’s choice not to pay the fine imposed by the Commission — No direct causal link (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 99-103)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 3 July 2014 in Case COMP/38.354 (Industrial bags — Trioplast Industrier AB) and, secondly, for damages under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Case T‑122/14

Italian Republic

v

European Commission

‛Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations — Periodic penalty payment — Judgment quantifying the amount of the periodic penalty payment — Method of calculating the interest applicable to the recovery of unlawful aid — Compound interest’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 9 June 2016

State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Payment of interest justified by the need to re-establish the previous position — Application of the interest rate on a compound basis — Regulation No 794/2004 — Scope ratione temporis — Determination of the method of calculating interest applicable, before the entry into force of the said regulation, to the recovery of unlawful aid — Reference to national law

(Art. 108(2) TFEU; Commission Regulation No 794/2004, Arts 11(2), and 13)

Although Article 11(2) of Regulation No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC)No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] states that the interest rate is to be applied on a compound basis until the date of the recovery of the aid and that the interest accruing in the previous year is to be subject to interest in each subsequent year, it is nevertheless necessary to note that that provision is, in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 13 of that regulation, applicable only to recovery decisions notified after the date on which that regulation entered into force, namely after 20 May 2004. Therefore, Article 11(2) of that regulation is not, as such, applicable ratione temporis to a decision ordering recovery of aid, notified to a Member State before that date.

In the absence of a provision under EU law on that subject, it is for national law to determine whether, in this case, the interest rate must be applied on a simple or on a compound basis. Thus, for recovery decisions preceding the entry into force of Regulation No 794/2004, compound interest can be taken into account only if that is the method normally applied under national law.

(see paras 59-61, 64, 65)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2016 —

Argus Security Projects v Commission

(Case T‑266/14)

‛Public service contracts — Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons’

1. European Union public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see para. 34)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Assessment having regard to the information at the applicant’s disposal at the time the action was brought — Information provided to the applicant not clearly showing the reasons for rejecting the tender and not sufficiently explaining the characteristics and advantages of the tender accepted — Insufficient statement of reasons (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Arts 158(1), and 161(3)) (see paras 35-37, 40-42, 45, 46, 48-50, 56)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — No obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 161(3)) (see para. 47)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Union Assistance Mission (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2016 —

Farahat v Council

(Case T‑830/14)

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment’

European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Syria — Ambit of the review (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2014/730/CFSP; Council Regulation No 36/2012) (see paras 27-29)

Re:

ACTION under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 36) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 7), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision No 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they apply to Mr Mohamed Farahat;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA

(Case T‑706/14)

(Research and technological development — Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — ZONeSEC and Inachus projects — Decision refusing participation of the applicant — Action for annulment and liability)

1. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—Abstract statement—Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see para. 21)

2. Actions for annulment—Grounds—Lack of competence of the institution which adopted the contested measure—Ground involving a question of public policy (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 25, 26)

3. Actions for annulment—Grounds—Misuse of powers—Concept (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 42)

4. Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 50-53)

5. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Unlawfulness—Damage—Causal link—Actual and certain damage—Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 137-141, 155)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the REA of 24 July 2014 (ARES (2014) 2461172), terminating negotiations and rejecting the participation of the applicant in the European projects Inachus and ZONeSEC and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of its exclusion from participation in the said projects and from the communication of certain information concerning the applicant following that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU to pay the costs in the present proceedings;
Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Permissibility of an overall assessment of a body of evidence — Compliance with the principle of the presumption of innocence

(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48)

(see paras 47-53, 88, 89, 103, 104)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2019 –

BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission

(Case T‑812/14 RENV)

(State aid — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo — Creation and capitalisation of a bridge bank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Lack of standing — Inadmissibility)

1. Action 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 brought by creditors of a bank put into resolution — Party concerned within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU — Criteria — Indirect effects of the contested decision on the value of bonds — Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(h)) (see paras 56-67)

2. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Commission decision finding State aid compatible with the internal market without opening the formal investigation procedure — Action brought by creditors of a bank put into resolution — Aid consisting of a capital contribution to a bridge bank set up under the resolution procedure — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 68-71)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5682 final of 3 August 2014 on State aid SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal — Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings for interim relief, at first instance and after referral back to the General Court;

3. Orders the Commission to bear the costs incurred by it in the proceedings on the appeal;