ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission

(Case T-541/18) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of tartaric acid originating in China - Extension of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Determination of the normal value - Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO - Analogue country methodology - Article 2(7) and Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Vulnerability of the Union industry - Likelihood of recurrence of injury - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 62/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix and M. França, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy), Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (Borgoricco, Italy), Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/921 of 28 June 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2018 L 164, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Bawtry Carbon International v Commission

(Case T-637/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Environment - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2021/C 44/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, S. Saez Moreno and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, R. Lindenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as that regulation classified pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bawtry Carbon International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

(Case T-218/18) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Operational aid granted by Germany to Frankfurt-Hahn airport - Decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Status as an interested party - Safeguard of procedural rights - Admissibility - Guidelines on aid in the aviation sector - Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market - Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Serious difficulties)

(2021/C 263/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) (represented by: R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 5289 final of 31 July 2017, on State aid SA.47969 (2017/N) implemented by Germany concerning operating aid granted to Frankfurt-Hahn airport.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 5289 final of 31 July 2017, on State aid SA.47969 (2017/N) implemented by Germany concerning operating aid granted to Frankfurt-Hahn airport;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and bear those incurred by Deutsche Lufthansa AG;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Rheinland-Pfalz to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA

(Case T-108/18) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Tempus IV Programmes - Grant agreements - Contractual nature of the dispute - Reclassification of the action - Eligible costs - Systemic and recurrent irregularities - Full repayment of amounts paid - Proportionality - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2021/C 148/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Felder, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent, and by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application principally under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letters of 21 December 2017 and 7 February 2018 of the EACEA relating to the amounts paid to the applicant in the context of grant agreements concluded for the implementation of three projects in the field of higher education and, alternatively, under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that the right to recovery claimed is not established.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Universität Koblenz-Landau to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Altice Europe v Commission

(Case T-425/18) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Telecommunications sector - Decision imposing fines for putting into effect a concentration before it has been notified and authorised - Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Principle of legality - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringements - Implementation of the infringements - Exchange of information - Amount of fines - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2021/C 462/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Altice Europe NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Allendesalazar Corcho and H. Brokelmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Petrova and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 2418 final of 24 April 2018 imposing fines for putting into effect a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case M.7993 — Altice/PT Portugal), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Altice Europe NV by Article 4 of European Commission Decision C(2018) 2418 final of 24 April 2018 imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case M.7993 — Altice/PT Portugal) for infringement of Article 4(1) of that regulation at EUR 56 025 000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Altice Europe to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the Commission;

4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Saab Halabi v Council

(Case T-249/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tarek William Saab Halabi (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, V. Piessevaux, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, 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 Tarek William Saab Halabi to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Commitments by Gazprom)

(Case T-616/18) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Gas markets of central and eastern Europe - Decision to make binding the individual commitments proposed by an undertaking - Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Whether the commitments are adequate in the light of the competition concerns initially identified in the statement of objections - Commission decision not to require commitments in relation to some of the initial concerns - Principle of sound administration - Transparency - Obligation to state reasons - Energy-policy objectives of the European Union - Principle of energy solidarity - Misuse of powers)

(2022/C 128/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Karasiewicz, T. Kaźmierczak, K. Kicun and P. Moskwa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: K. Dieninis and R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents), and Overgas Inc. (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: S. Gröss and S. Cappellari, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Gazprom PJSC (Moscow, Russia), and Gazprom export LLC (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Karenfort, J. Hainz, B. Evtimov, N. Tuominen and J. Heithecker, lawyers, as well as D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision C(2018) 3106 final of the Commission of 24 May 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 [TFEU] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39816 — Upstream Gas Supplies in Central and Eastern Europe).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC;

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Poland and Overgas Inc. to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — OCU v ECB

(Case T-15/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents relating to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law - Concept of confidential information - Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy - Right to a fair hearing)

(2021/C 490/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: T. Filipova, D. Báez Seara and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and M. Kottmann, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, J. Rius, C. Ehrbar and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and A. Rodríguez Conde, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Decision LS/MD/17/428 of the ECB of 17 November 2017 refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);

3. Orders the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — Julius Sämann v EUIPO — Maharishi Vedic University (Representation of a tree)

(Case T-559/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a tree - Earlier EU and international figurative marks representing an ‘arbre magique’ (magic tree) - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 77/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Julius Sämann Ltd (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Parrish, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Maharishi Vedic University Ltd (Mgarr, Malta) (represented by: L. Prehn, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2019 (Case R 1743/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Julius Sämann and Maharishi Vedic University.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Julius Sämann Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne v EUIPO (BOITON)

(Case T-255/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark BIOTON - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 36/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Aichstetten, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 (Case R 1887/2018-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign BOITON as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE)

(Case T-343/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SONANCE - Earlier national word mark conlance - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Conlance GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Hayn, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: LG Electronics, Inc (Seoul, South Korea)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 (Case R 1085/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Conlance and LG Electronics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Conlance GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2020 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTwo)

(Case T-203/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark CaraTwo - Earlier European Union word mark Carado - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 114/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Knaus Tabbert GmbH (Jandelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carado GmbH (Leutkirch im Allgäu, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 (Case R 851/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Carado and Knaus Tabbert.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the application;

2. orders Knaus Tabbert to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 27. 5. 2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral v EUIPO (pantys)

(Case T-532/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark pantys - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 215/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral Ltda (Sorocaba, Brazil) (represented by: B. Bittner and U. Heinrich, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2019 (Case R 314/2019-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative mark pantys as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral Ltda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Bergslagernas Järnvaru v EUIPO — Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen (Wood-splitting tool)

(Case T-73/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a wood-splitting tool - Earlier national design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2020/C 209/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag (Saltsjö-Boo, Sweden) (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund and B. Breitinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen GmbH (Ichenhausen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 (Case R 1455/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen and Bergslagernas Järnvaru.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)

(Case T-104/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVÉDERM - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered - Use in the form in which the mark was registered - Use with the proprietor’s consent - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 262/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: G. Paricheva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Zajfert, J. Crespo Carrillo, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 (Case R 2630/2017-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dermavita Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders Allergan Holdings France to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.