ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA

(Case T-636/17) (1)

(REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Supplement to the entry relating to the substance bisphenol A on that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality)

(2019/C 406/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere, C. Buchanan and A. Hautamäki, Agents, and initially by S. Raes, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented: initially by D. Colas, E. de Moustier and J. Traband, and subsequently by D. Colas, J. Traband and A. L. Desjonquères, Agents), ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision ED/30/2017 by the Executive Director of ECHA of 6 July 2017, by which the existing entry relating to bisphenol A on the list of identified substances with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3), in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation, was supplemented to the effect that that substance is also identified as a substance with endocrine disrupting properties that may have serious effects on human health which give rise to a level of concern equivalent to that raised by the use of other substances listed in Article 57(a) to (e) of that regulation, within the meaning of Article 57(f) thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PlasticsEurope to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-629/17) (1)

(ERDF - ESF - Reduction in financial assistance - Public procurement - Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC - Specific exclusion - Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters)

(2019/C 399/52)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and K. Rudzińska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4682 final of 6 July 2017 cancelling part of the European Social Fund assistance for the operational programme Education for Competitiveness under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic and part of the European Regional Development Fund assistance for the operational programmes Research and Development for Innovations under the ‘Convergence’ objective in the Czech Republic and Technical Assistance under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviário Tropical (Tropical)

(Case T-276/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Tropical - Earlier national word mark TROPICAL - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the goods - Likelihood of confusion - Coexistence of the marks)

(2020/C 10/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tadeusz Ogrodnik (Chorzów, Poland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Aviário Tropical, SA (Loures, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 (Case R 2125/2016 1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aviário Tropical and Mr Ogrodnik.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 February 2017 (Case R 2125/2016-1) in so far as, in that decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of ‘products and preparations for the breeding of birds, reptiles, amphibians’ in Class 31 and ‘veterinary, therapeutic, disinfecting and sanitary products and preparations for use in terraristics’ in Class 5;

2. Dismisses the appeal brought by Aviário Tropical, SA, against the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 15 July 2013 (No 6029C) in so far as that appeal seeks the annulment of the trade mark TROPICAL in respect of ‘products and preparations for the breeding of birds, reptiles, amphibians’ in Class 31 and ‘veterinary, therapeutic, disinfecting and sanitary products and preparations for use in terraristics’ in Class 5;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Mr Ogrodnik to pay half of EUIPO’s costs and half of his own costs;

5. Orders EUIPO to pay half of Mr Ogrodnik’s costs and half of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF v ECHA

(Case T-805/17) (1)

(REACH - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 - Requirement for joint submission of data - Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out - Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance - Failure to reach an agreement - Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy - Decision granting access to a joint submission - Legal basis - Broad discretion of ECHA - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty)

(2019/C 423/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen-am-Rhein, Germany) (represented by: R. Cana, D. Abrahams, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Jacquet and T. Basmatzi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision DSH-30-3-0122-2017 of ECHA of 2 October 2017 granting Sustainability Support Services (Europe) AB access to the joint submission lodged by BASF, as lead registrant for the substance disodium 4,4'-bis[(4-anilino-6-morpholino-1, 3, 5-triazin-2-yl)amino]stilbene-2,2'-disulphonate, EC No 240-245-2 and CAS No 16090-02-1.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BASF SE and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission

(Case T-814/17) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Rail freight market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU - Access by third-party undertakings to infrastructure managed by Lithuania’s national railway company - Removal of a section of railway track - Concept of ‘abuse’ - Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor - Calculation of the amount of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method for setting fines - Remedies - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2021/C 9/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: W. Deselaers, K. Apel and P. Kirst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Intervener, in support of the defendant: Orlen Lietuva AB (Mažeikiai, Lithuania) (represented by: C. Thomas and C. Conte, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking, primarily, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final of 2 October 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU (Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail) and, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB by Article 2 of European Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final of 2 October 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU (Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail) at EUR 20 068 650;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Lietuvos geležinkeliai and the Commission to bear their own costs;

4. Orders Orlen Lietuva AB to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

(Case T-110/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China - Undertakings - Admissibility - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 - Invalidation of undertaking invoices - Temporal application of new provisions)

(2020/C 329/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: Y. Melin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Kuplewatzky and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 of 7 December 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (OJ 2016 L 333, p. 4), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 of 7 December 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures, in so far as it concerns Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System;

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

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu

(Case T-318/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the amounts advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2022/C 2/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to repay the advanced payment paid under the Grant Agreement for partners No 325940, plus accrued late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 359 913,75, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 31 January 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;

2. Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Luxembourg and Amazon v Commission

(Cases T-816/17 and T-318/18) (1)

(State aid - Aid implemented by Luxembourg in favour of Amazon - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery - Tax ruling - Transfer pricing - Selective tax advantage - Transfer pricing arrangement - Functional analysis)

(2021/C 263/18)

Language of the case: English and French

Parties

Applicant in Case T-816/17: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: T. Uri, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck, A. Steichen and J. Bracker, lawyers)

Applicants in Case T-318/18: Amazon EU Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Amazon.com, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: D. Paemen, M. Petite and A. Tombiński, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Case T-816/17, by P. Stancanelli, P.-J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents, and by M. Chammas, lawyer, and, in Case T-318/18, by P.-J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-816/17: Ireland (represented by: J. Quaney and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by P. Gallagher, Senior Counsel, B. Doherty, Barrister, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Re:

Actions pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/859 of 4 October 2017 on State aid SA.38944 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Luxembourg in favour of Amazon (OJ 2018 L 153, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-816/17 and T-318/18 for the purposes of the present judgment;

2. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2018/859 of 4 October 2017 on State aid SA.38944 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Luxembourg in favour of Amazon;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon EU Sàrl;

4. Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — British Airways v Commission

(Case T-341/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of air freight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Obligation to state reasons - Article 266 TFEU - State coercion - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Duration of participation in the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Airways plc (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Turner, R. O’Donoghue QC, and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and A. Bates, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for cancellation of the fine imposed on the applicant or for a reduction in the amount thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(1)(e), (2)(e) and (3)(e) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it finds that British Airways plc participated in the component of the single and continuous infringement relating to the refusal to pay commission on surcharges;

2. Annuls Article 1(4)(e) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final;

3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on British Airways under Article 3(e) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final at EUR 84 456 000;

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by British Airways;

6. Orders British Airways to bear two thirds of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Air Canada v Commission

(Case T-326/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Failure to send a new statement of objections - Single and continuous infringement - Withdrawal of the leniency application - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Air Canada (Saint-Laurent, Quebec, Canada) (represented by: T. Soames and I.-Z. Prodromou-Stamoudi, lawyers, and by J. Joshua, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and H. Leupold, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz QC)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, in essence, annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for cancellation of the fine imposed on the applicant or a reduction in the amount of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(1)(a), (2)(a), (3)(a) and (4)(a) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it finds that Air Canada participated in the element of the single and continuous infringement relating to the refusal to pay commission on surcharges;

2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Air Canada in Article 3(a) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final at EUR 17 952 000;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Air Canada;

5. Orders Air Canada to bear two thirds of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (fit+fun)

(Case T-94/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark fit+fun - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 82/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Walicka, M. Eberl and A. Sesma Merino, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 (Case R 847/2017-1) concerning the registration of the word mark fit+fun as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 –Deray v EUIPO — Charles Claire (LILI LA TIGRESSE)

(Case T-105/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark LILI LA TIGRESSE - Earlier EU word mark TIGRESS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 164/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: André Deray (Bry-sur-Marne, France) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Charles Claire LLP (Weybridge, Surrey, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 (Case R 1244/2017-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Charles Claire and Mr Deray.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr André Deray to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Giove Gas v EUIPO — Primagaz (KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA)

(Case T-34/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA - Earlier EU word mark CALOON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 131/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giove Gas Srl (Tarquinia, Italy) (represented by: A. Bergonzini and F. Dinelli, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 1271/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz and Giove Gas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Giove Gas Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.