ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/11

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Parliament

(Case T-136/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Requests for quotation concerning all the lots covered by a call for tenders - Refusal to grant access - Absence of specific, individual examination of the documents requested - Exception relating to the protection of public security - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to the protection of privacy - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - General presumption - Unreasonable workload))

(2018/C 042/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by M. Sfyri and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, N. Rasmussen and L. Darie, and subsequently by N. Görlitz, L. Darie and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 13 February 2015 refusing to grant access to the requests for quotation in all lots of Call for Tenders ITS08 — External service provision for IT services 2008/S 149-199622.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Case T-577/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SHERPA — Earlier national word mark SHERPA — Partial declaration of invalidity — Subject matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA)

(Case T-577/15) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SHERPA — Earlier national word mark SHERPA — Partial declaration of invalidity — Subject matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Xavier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez (Erandio, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 July 2015 (Case R 1135/2014-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Núcleo de comunicaciones y control and Mr Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 July 2015 (Case R 1135/2014-2) as regards the goods designated by the contested mark in Class 9;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Mr Xavier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez;

4. Orders Mr Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez to bear two thirds of his own costs;

5. Orders Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/46

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — De Capitani v Parliament

(Case T-540/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure - Trilogues - Four-column tables relating to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JAI and 2005/681/JAI - Partial refusal of access - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - No general presumption that access should be refused to four-column tables drawn up for the purposes of trilogues))

(2018/C 161/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Emilio De Capitani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Wolfhagen and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: N. Görlitz, A. Troupiotis and C. Burgos, and subsequently by N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and I. Anagnostopoulou, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti, B. Driessen and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision A(2015) 4931 of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015, refusing to grant the applicant full access to the documents LIBE-2013-0091-02 and LIBE-2013-0091-03.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision A(2015) 4931 of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015 in so far as it refuses to grant Mr Emilio De Capitani full access to documents LIBE-2013-0091-02 and LIBE-2013-0091-03;

2. Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr De Capitani;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v EFSA

(Case T-725/15) (1)

((Plant protection products - Procedure for reviewing the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron - Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Conclusion of the EFSA review - Partial publication of that conclusion - Article 63 of Regulation No 1107/2009 - Request for confidential treatment of certain sections - Protection of commercial interests - Refusal to grant confidential treatment - Interest in bringing proceedings))

(2019/C 72/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV, formerly Chemtura Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and by R. Van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Moro and P. Ondrůšek, and subsequently by P. Ondrůšek and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of EFSA of 10 December 2015 relating to the publication of certain sections of the EFSA peer review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron concerning the metabolite PCA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Ezz and Others v Council

(Case T-288/15) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt - Freezing of funds - Admissibility - Objectives - Criteria for inclusion of persons targeted - Renewal of designation of the applicants on the list of persons targeted - Factual basis - Plea of illegality - Legal basis - Proportionality - Right to fair trial - Presumption of innocence - Right to good administration - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2018/C 427/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (Giza), Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza) (represented by: initially J. Lewis, B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, J. Binns, S. Rowe, Solicitors, and J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and subsequently B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, S. Rowe and H. de Charette, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/486 of 20 March 2015 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2015 L 77, p. 16), secondly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40) and, thirdly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2017 L 76, p. 22), in that those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar to bear their own costs and, in addition, pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Bank Saderat v Council

(Case T-433/15) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following its inclusion and re-inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2019/C 255/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Saderat plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley, A. Irvine, Solicitors, M. Demetriou QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Bishop and N. Rouam, and subsequently M. Bishop and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially M. Konstantinidis and D. Gauci, and subsequently M. Konstantinidis, A. Tizzano and C. Zadra, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of its name on the list of designated persons and entities in Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bank Saderat plc to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2019 — Hamas v Council

(Case T-289/15) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Whether an authority of a third State can be classified as a competent authority within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2019/C 139/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hamas (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially B. Driessen and N. Rouam, and subsequently B. Driessen, F. Naert and A. Sikora-Kalėda, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Tricot, and subsequently F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Baumgart and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015 updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP (OJ 2015 L 82, p. 107), and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 (OJ 2015 L 82, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Ocean Capital Administration and Others v Council

(Case T-332/15) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - List of persons and entities to whom those measures apply - Inclusion of the applicants’ names)

(2020/C 313/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ocean Capital Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex (represented by: P. Moser QC, E. Metcalfe, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, based on Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 101), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 12), in so far as those acts concern the applicants, and, second, an application based on Article 277 TFEU for a declaration of the inapplicability of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ocean Capital Administration GmbH and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the annex, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission

(Case T-762/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Infringement by object - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2019/C 305/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sony Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) and Sony Electronics (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. Farley, A. Biolan, C. Giolito, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, and subsequently by M. Farley, F. van Schaik, L. Wildpanner and A. Dawes, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/22

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE v EUIPO (LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ)

(Case T-7/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 462/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE (Cogolin, France) (represented by: T. Cuche, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2015 (Case R 720/2015-4) concerning the international registration designating the European Union of figurative mark LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/12

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case T-270/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service - Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official - Disciplinary proceedings - Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts - Disciplinary penalty of a reprimand - Procedural irregularity - Consequences of the irregularity))

(2017/C 095/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016, Kerstens v Commission (F-23/15, EU:F:2016:65), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016, Kerstens v Commission (F-23/15, EU:F:2016:65) in so far as it rejects the claim for annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 15 April 2014 imposing a reprimand on Mr Petrus Kerstens;

2. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 15 April 2014 imposing a reprimand on Mr Kerstens;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings on appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/28

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff)

(Case T-64/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative trade mark Tasty Puff - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Michał Wieromiejczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 (Case R 3058/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Tasty Puff as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Michał Wieromiejczyk to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/25

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v EUIPO — Fink (NANA FINK)

(Case T-39/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark NANA FINK - Earlier EU word mark NANA - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Duty to rule on the entirety of the action))

(2017/C 161/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nadine Fink (Basel, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2015 (Case R 679/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp and Ms Fink.

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 12 November 2015 (Case R 679/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Ms Nadine Fink, in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the action before it with regard to ‘precious metals and their alloys’ in Class 14 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and covered by the figurative mark which was the subject of International Registration No 1111651 designating the European Union;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.