ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-168/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Grizzly Tools v Commission (Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers — Directive 2006/42/EC — Safeguard clause — National measure of withdrawal from the market and prohibition of placing on the market of a pressure washer — Commission decision declaring the measure justified — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Grizzly Tools v Commission

(Case T-168/16) ( 1 )

‛(Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers — Directive 2006/42/EC — Safeguard clause — National measure of withdrawal from the market and prohibition of placing on the market of a pressure washer — Commission decision declaring the measure justified — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)’

Parties

Applicant: Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co.KG (Großostheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Fischer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Petersen, subsequently by K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/175 of 8 February 2016 on a measure taken by Spain pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market of a type of pressure washer (OJ 2016 L 33, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co.KG is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
Case T-807/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — AFNOR (N & NF TRADING) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark N & NF TRADING — Earlier EU figurative mark NF ENVIRONNEMENT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — AFNOR (N & NF TRADING)

(Case T-807/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark N & NF TRADING — Earlier EU figurative mark NF ENVIRONNEMENT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Association française de normalisation (AFNOR) (La Plaine Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: B. Fontaine, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 (Case R 1109/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between AFNOR and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 22, 23.1.17.
Case T-803/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SALMEX — Earlier three-dimensional national mark — Competence of the Board of Appeal to examine of its own motion whether the earlier mark had been put to genuine use — Article 64(1) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)

(Case T-803/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SALMEX — Earlier three-dimensional national mark — Competence of the Board of Appeal to examine of its own motion whether the earlier mark had been put to genuine use — Article 64(1) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, T. St Quintin, S. Wickenden, Barristers, E. Morris and R. Jacob, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Celon Pharma S.A. (Łomianki, Poland) (represented by: M. Krasiński, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2108/2015-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Celon Pharma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2108/2015-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Glaxo Group Ltd during the proceedings before the General Court;

3. Orders Celon Pharma S.A. to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court.

( 1 ) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — POA (COWBOYS HALLOUMI)

(Case T-847/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark COWBOYS HALLOUMI - Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 352/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pagkypriosorganismos ageladotrofon (POA) (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against an appeal brought before the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 2781/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus et POA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-644/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements - Partial refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Exception concerning the protection of legal advice - Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest))

(2018/C 301/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer, and N. Frey, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4286 final of 1 July 2016, refusing access to certain documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-272/16) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Flat-rate financial corrections - Specific financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of permanent pasture - Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % - Flat-rate correction of 10 % - Flat-rate correction of 5 % - Article 31(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Key controls - Ancillary controls - Multiannual measures - Long-term projects)

(2018/C 427/50)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou, A. Vasilopoulou, D. Ntourntoureka and E. Leftheriotou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially D. Triantafyllou and J. Aquilina, then D. Triantafyllou, J. Aquilina and K. Skelly, and lastly D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Apimab Laboratoires and Others v Commission

(Case T-14/16) (1)

((Consumer protection - Setting of maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food supplements - Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 - Risk analysis - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Principle of non-discrimination))

(2018/C 381/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Apimab Laboratoires (Clermont-l’Hérault, France) and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. de Brosses, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herbout-Borczak and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1933 of 27 October 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in cocoa fibre, banana chips, food supplements, dried herbs and dried spices (OJ 2015 L 282, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Apimab Laboratoires and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — RA v Court of Auditors

(Case T-874/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2016 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 - No staff report - Comparison of merits)

(2019/C 4/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RA (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors (represented by: C. Lesauvage, E. von Bardeleben and A.-M. Cosciug, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 4 March 2016 not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AD 11), in the 2016 promotion procedure, by not including his name in the list of officials promoted in the 2016 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Court of Auditors of 4 March 2016 not to promote RA to grade AD 11 in the 2016 promotion exercise;

2. The Court of Auditors is ordered to pay all the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — France v Commission

(Case T-682/16) (1)

(EAGF - Area-linked aid - Procedure for the suspension of monthly payments to a Member State - Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Key components of the national control system - Deficiencies found - Action plan including clear progress indicators established in consultation with the Commission - Proportionality)

(2018/C 427/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, D. Segoin, A.-L. Desjonquères and S. Horrenberger, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4287 final of 12 July 2016 suspending monthly payments to the French Republic under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — VG v Commission

(Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents and information relating to a decision of the Commission to put an end to a ‘letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe’ - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the protection of individuals - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Refusal of transfer - Articles 7, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Non-contractual liability))

(2019/C 44/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VG, as the sole heir of Ms (represented initially by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, and subsequently by: L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Simon, and subsequently by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 2 February and 19 April 2016 rejecting MS’ application for access to the documents concerning him and of 16 June 2016 rejecting his request to transfer to him the personal data concerning him contained in the documents covered by that application for access and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by Ms on account of that refusal of access and transfer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 16 June 2016 rejecting MS’ request to transfer to him certain personal data;

2. Orders the Commission to pay VG, as the sole heir of MS, a sum of EUR 5 000;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders VG and the Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — ARFEA v Commission

(Case T-720/16) (1)

((State aid - Retroactive public service compensation granted by the Italian authorities - Regional bus transport service provided between 1997 and 1998 on the basis of concessions - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Altmark judgment - Temporal application of rules of substantive law))

(2019/C 44/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Aziende reunite filovie ed autolinee Srl (ARFEA) (Alexandria, Italy) (represented by: M. Chiti, V. Angiolini and L. Formilan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2084 of 10 June 2016 concerning State Aid SA.38132 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) — additional PSO compensation for ARFEA (OJ 2016 L 321, p. 57).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. Aziende reunite filovie ed autolinee Srl (ARFEA) is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — C=Holdings v EUIPO — Trademarkers (C=commodore)

(Case T-672/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark C=commodore - Application for invalidation of the effects of the international registration - Article 158(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 198(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No genuine use concerning certain goods and services covered by the international registration - Presence of proper reasons for non-use))

(2019/C 82/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: C=Holdings BV (Oldenzaal, Netherlands) (represented by: initially P. Maeyaert and K. Neefs and then P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Trademarkers NV (Antwerp, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 (Case R 2585/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Trademarkers and C=Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2016 (Case R 2585/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Trademarkers NV and C=Holdings BV, in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal of C=Holdings as regards the existence of proper reasons for non-use of the international registration of which it is the proprietor;

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-77/16) (1)

((State aid - Agreements concluded with the airline Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Selectivity))

(2019/C 82/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: L. Armati, L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented initially by: D. Pelše, J. Treijs-Gigulis and I. Kalniņš, and subsequently by I. Kucina, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/152 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27339 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany for Zweibrücken airport and airlines using the airport (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 68).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/152 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27339 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany for Zweibrücken airport and airlines using the airport, and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision, in so far as they concern Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services;

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

4. Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
Judgment of the General Court 28 February 2019 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-440/16) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality)

(2019/C 139/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and finally by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125) and its subsequent implementing acts, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255 CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Souruh SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Cham v Council

(Case T-413/16) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to honour and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality))

(2019/C 93/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Cham Holding (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, then by S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125), and its subsequent implementing acts, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cham Holding to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.