ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
40

Finally, in both its observations of 10 March 2017 on the statement in intervention of the Federal Republic of Germany and in its additional statement of 13 March 2017, PGNiG Supply points to the fact that, despite the order of 23 December 2016, PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission (T‑849/16 R), the OPAL pipeline has been operated at a level showing a use of capacities which were organised before the suspension of the execution of the contested decision following the conditions authorised by that decision. In that regard, it suffices to note, first, that, although legitimate questions may arise as regards the facts of the use of the transport capacities on the OPAL pipeline which followed the adoption of the order of the same date, it is apparent from the file, in particular the statement in intervention of the Federal Republic of Germany, that the current use of that pipeline in fact continues to be regulated by the conditions applicable before the adoption of the contested decision and, secondly, that, although the Federal Republic of Germany did indeed confirm, at the hearing on 5 July 2017, that some contracts, concerning bidding procedures organised before the adoption of the order of 23 December 2016, PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission (T‑849/16 R), had been executed in breach of the effects of the suspension declared by the Judge hearing applications for interim measures in his order, it did, however, emphasise the confusion which surrounded that situation. Following the adoption of that order, proceedings were brought before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany) and led to the adoption of a decision of 30 December 2016 suspending the agreement concluded between OGT and the BNetzA on 28 November 2016. The Federal Republic of Germany thus took the view, incorrectly, as it accepted at the hearing, that only the organisation of bidding procedures for the future was affected, excluding any effect on the performance of the contracts relating to past bidding procedures. In the light of the exchanges which then took place in the context of the present proceedings, the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that such an incorrect interpretation could not happen again in the event of either a new suspension declared by the Judge hearing applications for interim measures or an annulment of the contested decision by the General Court. In that regard, it has stated that the German legislation granted it powers of injunction against the BNetzA which suffice to ensure that the decisions of the General Court and the Judge hearing applications for interim measures are given their full effect. Accordingly, there is nothing to suggest that a new suspension, ordered in the hypothetical situation of an application to the Judge hearing applications for interim measures under Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure and the annulment of the contested decision would not be followed by the effects which accompany such legal decisions.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

22 November 2018 ( *1 )

(Rectification)

In Case T-825/16,

Republic of Cyprus, represented by S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by D. Gája, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, and intervener before the General Court, being

Papouis Dairies Ltd, established in Nicosia (Cyprus), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 2065/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of M. Prek, President, F. Schalin (Rapporteur) and M. J. Costeira, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1 The Court delivered the judgment of 13 July 2018, Cyprus v EUIPO – Papouis Dairies (Pallas Halloumi), (T-825/16, EU:T:2018:482).

2 In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, a clerical mistake found in the object of that judgment.

On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) hereby orders:

The paragraph in which the object is contained should be read as follows:

‘ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 2065/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies,’

instead of

‘ACTION brought against an appeal brought before the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 2065/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies,’.

Luxembourg, 22 November 2018. E. Coulon Registrar M. Prek President

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.
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—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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(2))

(see paras 13-15)
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—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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 23-26)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — Rogesa v Commission

(Case T‑475/17)

(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents concerning an installation producing a mixture of pellets and sintered ore — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted before the action was brought — Application for an order that there is no need to adjudicate — Interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Interest in bringing proceedings—Disappearance due to an event occurring between the lodging of the application by fax and the lodging of the original signed by the applicant—Adoption of the express decision granting access to the documents requested—No longer any (legal) interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 19)

2. Judicial proceedings—Time-limit for instituting proceedings—Claim barred by lapse of time—Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure—Meaning—Postal delay—Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see para. 25)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, primarily, annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 20 June 2017 and, in the alternative, of the decision of 11 July 2017 refusing to grant access to the document Ares (2017) 1684109 of 2 November 2009 and the document Ares (2017) 1685639 of 29 November 2009.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 26 June 2018 –

Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T‑784/17 RII)

(Application for interim measures — Public works contracts — Order granting suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels — Application for variation — Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissibility)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Modification or setting aside—Condition—Change in circumstances (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 159) (see paras 7, 8)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Admissibility criteria—Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought—Application seeking to obtain a stay of execution of a decision which no longer has legal effects—Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 18, 33, 34)

3. Actions for annulment—Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision—Inadmissibility—Concept of confirmatory decision—Decision based on new information compared to the previous decision—Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 23-25)

Re:

Application under Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court for variation of the order of 18 January 2018, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T‑784/17 R, not published, under appeal, EU:T:2018:17).

Operative part

1. The application for variation of the order of 18 January 2018, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T‑784/17 R, not published, under appeal, EU:T:2018:17) is dismissed.
Actions brought by officials—Judgment annulling a measure—Amicable settlement between an agent and his institution—Effects—Obligation to implement—Scope—Account taken of the grounds of the amicable settlement

(Art. 266 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(1))

(see paras 34, 35)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 September 2018 –

OPS Újpest v Commission

(Case T‑708/17)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Preliminary examination procedure — Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Inadmissibility)

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date of notification of the decision — Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant — Application lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU)

(see paras 17, 20-22)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions that the Commission allegedly adopted concerning the complaints 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 SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 July 2018 –

thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission

(Case T‑577/17)

(Action for annulment — Customs union — Authorisation for inward processing — Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers — Article 211(6) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Examination of the economic conditions — Scope of the Commission’s conclusions — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Exception — Measures constituting the last word of a special procedure distinct from that enabling a ruling on the substance (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 24-28)

2. Free movement of goods — Trade with non-member countries — Processing scheme under customs control — Examination of the economic conditions — Commission’s findings — Binding nature — None (Council Regulation No 952/2013, Art. 211(6)) (see paras 45-47, 55, 56)

3. Free movement of goods — Trade with non-member countries — Processing scheme under customs control — Examination of the economic conditions — Commission’s findings — Binding nature — None — Adoption of a new regulation in the field — Irrelevant (Commission Regulations No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 993/2001, Art. 504(4), and 2015/2447, Art. 259(5), first para.) (see paras 57-61, 64, 67-69)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s alleged decision ostensibly contained in the minutes of the sixth meeting of the Customs Expert Group Section ‘Special Procedures other than transit’ of 2 May 2017 concluding that the essential interests of EU producers would not be adversely affected by an authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products requested by Euro-Mit Staal BV.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on Euro-Mit Staal BV’s application to intervene.

3. In addition to bearing its own costs, the European Commission shall pay the costs incurred by thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 November 2018 –

Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

(Case T‑14/17)

(Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Manifest 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 — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Criteria for assessment (Art. 263, sixth para. TFEU) (see paras 35, 44-46, 51)

2. Acts of the institutions — General obligation to inform the addressees of measures of the judicial remedies available and of the time-limits — None (Arts 263, fourth and sixth para. TFEU and 275, second para. TFEU) (see para. 41)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, second, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. Landesbank Baden-Württemberg is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 4 July 2018 –

SFIE-PE v Parliament

(Case T‑401/18 R)

(Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Strike action by interpreters — Measures for the requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Application for interim measures — Partial inadmissibility — Weighing up of interests)

1. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Application—Formal requirements—Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 12)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Admissibility criteria—Measure capable of producing legal effects—Meaning—Decision having ceased to produce effects—Not included—Decision not existing at the time of the application for interim measures—Not included (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 13, 16)

3. 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 18, 20, 21)

4. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Conditions for granting—Balancing of all the interests involved—Meaning (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 23)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of the decisions of the European Parliament of 2 and 3 July 2018 concerning the requisition of interpreters and future decisions concerning the requisition of interpreters for 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order requiring the Parliament to limit requisitions of interpreters in future.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 –

Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)

(Case T‑82/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark HUSKY — Earlier EU word and figurative marks HUSKY — Relative ground for refusal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

EU trade mark — Registration procedure — Withdrawal, restriction and amendment of the trade mark application — Power vested solely in the applicant — No action on the part of the applicant in the course of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO — Removal, by the Board of Appeal, of the implicit withdrawal of the trade mark application — Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1), replaced by European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 49(1))

(see para. 37)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2018 (Case R 812/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Husky of Tostock and Husky CZ.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility criteria — Prima facie admissibility of the main action — Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures — Union court not competent to hear the principal action — Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 9-12, 14-16)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 –

Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter)

(Case T‑473/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark getsmarter — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 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 any distinctive character — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria — Perception of the trade mark by the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 28-30)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, 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 any distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Slogan displaying imaginativeness (Council Regulation No 207/2009, 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 any distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Laudatory promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark getsmarter (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 34-38)

7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Use before the date of filing the application for registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 50)

8. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — 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 51-56)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 (Case R 2632/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign getsmarter as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2019 –

Theodorakidi v EUIPO — Benopoulou (THYREOS VASSILIKI)

(Case T‑160/18)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark THYREOS VASSILIKI — Declaration of invalidity — Right to the name Vassiliki in Greece — Relative ground for invalidity regarding the infringement of the right to a name — Article 60(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see paras 15, 24, 28, 32)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 (Case R 40/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Benopoulou and Ms Theodorakidi.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2019 –

Nissin Foods Holdings v EUIPO — The GB Foods (Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES)

(Case T‑663/18)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1)(b) and 59(1)(a)) (see para. 19)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Composite mark — Taking into account the overall perception of the mark by the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1)(b) and 59(1)(a)) (see paras 20, 21)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Figurative mark Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1)(b) and 59(1)(a)) (see paras 35, 42, 43, 45-47, 50-52)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2018 (Case R 111/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between The GB Foods and Nissin Foods Holdings.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

2. Nissin Foods Holdings Co. Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).