ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 June 2018 –

L v Parliament

(Case T‑156/17)

(Civil Service — Accredited Parliamentary assistant — Termination of contract — Litispendence — Inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings—Objection of lis pendens—Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions—Inadmissibility of the second action

(see paras 21-29)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 24 June 2016 to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment as an accredited Parliamentary assistant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary of the pleas in law and arguments relied on — Pleas in law and arguments not set out in the application — Reference to elements in an annex — Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 22, 28, 29)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 September 2018 –

Activa Minoristas del Popular v ECB and CRU

(Case T‑618/17)

(Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Action for annulment — Association set up after the adoption of the contested measure — Lack of direct concern — Manifestly inadmissible)

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 19)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Single Resolution Board decision adopting a resolution scheme in respect of a national bank — Action by an association to defend the interests of the investors concerned which was set up after the decision was adopted — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 806/2014, Art. 18) (see paras 24-26)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the SRB of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Banco Santander, SA, Banco Popular Español, SA, the Kingdom of Spain, the European Commission and Chavela Inmuebles, SL.

3. Activa Minoristas del Popular Asociación para la tutela de los inversores minoristas afectados por la resolución, supervisión y gestión del Banco Popular shall pay the costs with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.
It should be observed that although, in the wording applicable at the time when the interim decision was adopted, Article 40 of Regulation No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark on observations by third parties did not provide explicitly for the possibility for the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to reopen the examination of absolute grounds on its own initiative, at any time before registration of a trade mark, since that possibility was included in Article 40(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 only after the amendment thereof by Article 38 of Regulation 2015/2424 amending Regulation No 207/2009, there was such a possibility for the Office, even in the absence of any express provision to that effect.

Furthermore, it is apparent from the broad logic of Article 37 and Articles 40 to 42 of Regulation No 207/2009 that an examination of the compliance of a trade mark application with the absolute grounds for refusal is to be conducted solely in the context of ex parte proceedings between the trade mark applicant and the Office’s adjudicating bodies. It is in fact only in invalidity proceedings brought against a registered trade mark on the basis of Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 that the question of whether that mark has been registered in disregard of an absolute ground for refusal is examined in the context of inter partes proceedings.

It necessarily follows that where, in inter partes opposition proceedings, the Office reopens the examination of absolute grounds for refusal, that then triggers separate ex parte proceedings which run in parallel with the opposition proceedings.

(see paras 32-34)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 November 2018 –

Spinoit v Commission and Others

(Case T‑711/17)

(Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision — No capacity as a defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part)

1. Action for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — Union delegation — Not a body, office or agency of the EU — Measures adopted by the head of an EU delegation in the context of a tendering procedure — Measures attributable to the Commission (Arts 221 TFEU and 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012; Council Decision 2010/427) (see paras 28, 29)

2. Action for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Annulment of a measure which is part of a purely contractual context — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU, 274 TFEU et 288 TFEU) (see paras 31-36)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Injury — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 51-54)

4. EU law — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Scope — Applicability to contractual relations linking the Union with third parties — Not included (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41) (see paras 57, 58)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 67)

6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Insufficient reasoning in a Union act — Not included (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 69)

Re:

Action, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the letter of 3 August 2017 requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert in the context of a public services contract and, second, under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered further to that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
2

In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the parties having been given an opportunity to submit their written observations pursuant to Article 164(3) of those rules, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, clerical mistakes or errors in calculation or obvious inaccuracies found in paragraph 66 of that judgment.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 10 July 2018 –

Synergy Hellas v Commission

(Case T‑244/18 R)

(Application for interim measures — Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Recovery of the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief—Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 15, 17, 18)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 21)

3. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Financial loss—Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market—Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156, § 4) (see paras 22-24)

4. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Application—Formal requirements—Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for—Pleas in law not set out in the application—General reference to other documents—Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 26, 28)

5. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see para. 27)

6. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Cumulative nature—Particularly strong prima facie case—No impact on the obligation to examine urgency separately—Exception (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 33-37)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 1115 final of 19 February 2018 relating the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 76 282.08 plus default interest.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief — Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 16-19)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2019 –

Zott v EUIPO — TSC Food Products (Ready-to-eat rectangular cake)

(Case T‑517/18)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a ready-to-eat rectangular cake — Earlier Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Designer’s degree of freedom — Informed user — Article 4(1), Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Global assessment of all the elements of the prior design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 49, 53)

2. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Informed user — Definition (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27)

3. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 41)

4. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of a ready-to-eat rectangular cake (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 61, 63)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2018 (Case R 1341/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between TSC Food Products and Zott.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Actions for damages — Subject-matter — Claim for compensation for damage caused by national authorities acting in breach of EU law — Jurisdiction of the national courts

(Arts 268 and 340, second and third paras TFEU)

(see para. 26)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing)

(Case T‑649/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark transparent pairing — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 19)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Laudatory promotional formula (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 23)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Word mark transparent pairing (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 36-38)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Slogan carrying an objective message (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 35)

7. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, art. 94(1), first sentence) (see para. 41)

8. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Registration of a new trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Burden of proof (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 (Case R 2487/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign transparent pairing as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2019 –

Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T‑375/18)

(Action for annulment and for damages — Institutional law — European Parliament — Work of a delegation outside the European Union — Decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan — List of the persons authorised to participate in an interparliamentary meeting in Japan which did not include the name of the applicant — Period within which an action must be brought — Late submission — Measure not open to challenge — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Silence or inaction of an institution — Treatment as an implied rejection decision — Precluded (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 35, 36, 40, 41)

2. 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 — Action seeking compensation for loss caused by an EU institution — No indications as to the character and extent of the damage suffered or as to the causal link — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 340, 2nd para. TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 46-48)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for, primarily, the annulment of the decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan of 20 March 2018, listing the persons who were authorised to participate in an interparliamentary meeting in Japan and, in the alternative, the annulment of two decisions of implied refusal, and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for repair of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that measure.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 December 2019 –

Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v Commission

(Case T‑763/18)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Allegedly unlawful aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers — Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Knowledge acquired — Proof — Duty of diligence — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Time limits — Point from which time starts to run — Decision neither published nor notified to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the content and reasons — Duty to request the whole text of the decision within a reasonable time once its existence is known (Art. 263, sixth para. TFEU) (see paras 22, 28, 30)

2. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Letter from the Commission sent to a national court simply informing it of the progress on the investigation of a State aid complaint — Not included — Application inadmissible (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 37-39)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions allegedly adopted by the Commission concerning, first, complaint SA.29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation and, second, complaint SA.45498 (FC/2016) — Complaint by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to undertakings employing disabled workers.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 November 2019 –

ZI v Commission

(Case T‑618/18)

(Civil service — Officials — Cover by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — Affiliation of the official’s spouse — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for a vested and present interest — Assessment at the time when the action was brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see para. 16)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 4 December 2017 of the Commission’s ‘Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) refusing to grant the applicant’s husband affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Union.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
35

In addition, it must be recalled that, also according to settled case-law, it has been found, that, on the one hand, with regard to a loss corresponding to less than 10% of turnover of undertakings active in highly regulated markets, the financial difficulties which those undertakings risked suffering do not appear to be such as to threaten their very existence (order of 15 November 2011, Xeda International v Commission, T‑269/11 R, not published, EU:T:2011:665, paragraph 21; see also, to that effect, order of 11 April 2001, Commission v Bruno Farmaceutici and Others, C‑474/00 P(R), EU:C:2001:219, paragraph 106) and, on the other, regarding a loss representing almost two thirds of the turnover of those undertakings, while acknowledging that the financial difficulties they underwent could have been such as to threaten their very existence, it has nevertheless been underlined that, in a highly regulated sector where major investment is often required and the competent authorities may be led to intervene when public health risks become apparent, for reasons which cannot always be foreseen by the undertakings concerned, it was for those undertakings, if they were not to bear themselves the loss resulting from such intervention, to protect themselves against its consequences by adopting an appropriate policy (see order of 16 June 2016, ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission, C‑170/16 P(R), not published, EU:C:2016:462, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
41

Furthermore, as regards the reference to the judgment of 23 April 2013, Gbagbo and Others v Council (C‑478/11 P to C‑482/11 P, EU:C:2013:258, paragraphs 58 and 59), it is sufficient to note that the Court of Justice held that the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU would not be applied consistently if, when applied to persons and entities who are named in the lists contained in the annexes to measures adopted on the basis of provisions relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the starting point for the calculation of the period for bringing an action for annulment was fixed as the date of publication of the measure at issue and not as the date when that measure was communicated to them. According to the Court of Justice, it followed that, while the entry into force of measures such as the contested measures was indeed effected by their publication, the period for the bringing of an action for the annulment of those measures under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU ran, for each of those persons and entities, from the date of the communication which they were required to receive. It is evident from that judgment that the criterion of notification or individual communication must be used as the starting point for the period for instituting proceedings, even when the criterion of publication determines the entry into force of the act in question. That case-law cannot, therefore, in any way serve Romania’s argument that the starting point for the period for instituting proceedings is publication and in fact — quite the contrary — it formally rejects that argument even in a situation where publication determines the act in question coming into force and taking legal effect.
Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 13-17)