ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 13 November 2020 –

NG and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑646/20 R)

(Application for interim measures – Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 – Absence of direct or individual concern – Inadmissibility of the main action – Inadmissibility)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 9-12)

2. Interim relief – Admissibility criteria – Prima facie admissibility of the main action – Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(1)) (see paras 16, 18)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 24)

4. Acts of the institutions – Legal nature – Legislative acts and regulatory acts – Distinguishing criteria – Procedure for the adoption of the act (Arts 289(1) and (3) and 294 TFEU) (see paras 25, 26)

5. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Person individually affected by a measure of a general nature – Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 31-33)

6. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Individual concern – Criteria – Regulation regarding the minimum requirements for maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods – Action brought by professional drivers and transport companies – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2020/1054) (see paras 39-43)

7. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members – Admissibility – Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 44)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Application for interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156)

(see paras 32-35)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2021 –

TrekStor v EUIPO – Yuneec Europe (Breeze)

(Case T‑158/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Breeze – Earlier EU word mark Breeze – Relative ground for refusal – Comparison of the goods – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 28, 30, 42, 43)

2. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – The Office’s previous decision-making practice – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 31, 48)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 82)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks Breeze and Breeze (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 50-52, 64, 71, 77, 83)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2020 (Case R 470/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Yuneec Europe and TrekStor.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Community designs – Surrender and invalidity – Application for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of an earlier design – Earlier designs relied on subsequent to the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Not included

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 52(2) and 63(2); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(i)(v) and (vi))

(see paras 30-32)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 July 2021 –

Kozhuvchanka uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci v EUIPO (NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER)

(Case T‑357/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for the EU figurative mark NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Geographical origin – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Direction addressed to the Office – Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see para. 13)

2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Alteration of a decision of the Office – Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 66(1), 71(1) and 72(3)) (see paras 15-17)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Definition (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 22, 50)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 47, 53)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Figurative mark NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 33-35, 46, 48, 56, 57)

6. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see para. 61)

7. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see paras 62, 63)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 (Case R 1729/2019-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Person individually affected by a measure of a general nature – Conditions – Commission Regulation temporarily withdrawing trade preferences in respect of certain products originating in Cambodia on account of serious and systematic violations of human rights – Action by a national association representing the interests of the industries concerned – Lack of individual concern of the members represented – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 978/2012, Annex VIII, Part A; Commission Regulation 2020/550, Titles 2, 3 and 4)

(see paras 18, 44, 46-53, 64-66)
2.

Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Note from the administration informing the official concerned of its intention to reassign him in the future – Precluded (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) (see paras 25-28, 33-35, 38)
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2021 –

Fryč v Commission

(Case T‑92/20)

(Non-contractual liability – State aid – Block exemption regulations – Aid programme granted by the Czech authorities in favour of certain undertakings – Commission decision approving that programme – Action for annulment dismissed as being out of time – Damage allegedly caused by acts of the Commission and the EU Courts – Limitation period – Action in part manifestly inadmissible – Causal link – Action in part manifestly unfounded in law)

1. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Liability for a legislative act – Date of appearance of the prejudicial effects of the act (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see para. 18)

2. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption – Conditions – Proceedings instituted before the EU judicature or, prior to such proceedings, an application made to the relevant institution – Concept of application for that purpose – Application for annulment – Precluded (Art. 340 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see para. 22)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 30)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 28, 31)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of, first, the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3), second, the adoption by the Commission of the decision of 3 December 2007 and the failure to publish that decision, third, the shortcomings in the Commission’s handling of the complaints lodged by the applicant between 2016 and 2018 and, fourth, the orders of 5 September 2019, Fryč v Commission (C‑230/19 P, not published, EU:C:2019:685), and of 15 January 2019, Fryč v Commission (T‑513/18, not published, EU:T:2019:22).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by the Czech Republic.

3. Mr Petr Fryč shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene.
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Application not sufficiently clear and precise – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 28)
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 June 2021 – Price v Council

(Case T‑231/20)

(Action for annulment – Area of freedom, security and justice – Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom – Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement on withdrawal – United Kingdom nationals – Loss of EU citizenship – Act not of individual concern – Non-regulatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Person individually affected by a measure of a general nature – Conditions – Council decision approving the conclusion of the agreement setting out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union – Action brought by United Kingdom nationals – Loss of EU citizenship and related rights – Act not of individual concern – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Decision (EU) 2020/135) (see paras 34, 36-40, 44-51)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Council decision approving the conclusion of the agreement setting out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union – Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Decision (EU) 2020/135) (see paras 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 65-77)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2020 L 29, p. 7) and of Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2020 L 29, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the European Commission.

3. Mr David Price is ordered to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those regarding the application for interim measures, with the exception of those related to the application for leave to intervene.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 4 February 2022 –

ultra air v EUIPO – Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)

(Case T‑67/21)

(EU trade mark – Proceedings for invalidity and revocation – European Union word mark ultrafilter international – Request for conversion to a national trade mark application – Revocation proceedings devoid of purpose – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Application for revocation – Interest in bringing proceedings – Invalidity of the contested mark – No interest in continuing the revocation proceedings – Conversion into a national trade mark application – Irrelevant

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 58(1)(a), 62(1) and (2), 67, 139(1) to (3) and 140(4))

(see paras 42-46, 51-54)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2020 (Case R 271/2020-2), concerning revocation proceedings between ultra air and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 17 September 2021 – Firearms United Network and Others v Commission

(Case T‑187/21 R)

(Application for interim relief – REACH – Amendment of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Restriction on lead and lead compounds – Use of lead shot – Protection of wetlands – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 8, 10, 11)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU) (see para. 14)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Need to plead the risk of suffering that damage personally (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 20, 22)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/57 of 25 January 2021 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), as regards lead in gunshot in or around wetlands (OJ 2021 L 24, p. 19).

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
1.

Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought by an applicant who is not an addressee of the contested act – Admissibility – Condition – Measure producing binding legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant – Commission decision amending the conditional marketing authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine – Measure not bringing about a change in the applicant’s legal position – No interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 20-24, 29, 30)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 2021 –

Mariani and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑124/21)

(Action for annulment – Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 – Cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations – Act not of individual concern – Non-regulatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Application brought by the natural or legal person to whom the contested measure is addressed – Concept of addressee – Individual not designated in the act – Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 17, 19, 20)

3. Acts of the institutions – Legal nature – Legislative act – Concept – Regulation 2020/2223 – Included (Art. 325 TFEU) (see para. 21)

4. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Conditions cumulative in nature – Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 23)

5. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation 2020/2223 – Action brought by Members of the European Parliament against a part of that regulation concerning the cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., and 325 TFEU) (see paras 25, 32)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 1 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of the European Anti-Fraud Office investigations (OJ 2020 L 437, p. 49).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union.

3. Mr Thierry Mariani and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the European Parliament.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2022 –

Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case T‑493/21)

(Action for annulment – Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance – Non-Member State – National public procurement – Termination of the contract by the contracting authority – Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee – Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the non-Member State – Lack of jurisdiction)

Action for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Pre-Accession Assistance Instrument – Non-member State – National public procurement – Termination of the contract by the contracting authority – Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee – Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the non-member State or by his or her deputy – No jurisdiction of the EU judicature

(Arts 263 and 288 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1085/2006; Commission Regulation No 718/2007)

(see paras 23-26, 31-33, 36, 41)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
1.

Actions brought by officials – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Review of the legality of a decision taking over a national authority’s calculation of the pension rights to be transferred to the EU scheme and fixing the number of pensionable years of service to be taken into account under that scheme – Included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Art. 11(2)) (see para. 28)