ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 September 2019 –

Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Marijn van Oosten Holding (UKIO)

(Case T‑367/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark UKIO — Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 58)

2. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

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 — Word mark UKIO — Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 54-56, 60-64)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2018 (Case R 1536/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sixsigma Networks Mexico and Marijn van Oosten Holding.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Respect for private life — Protection of personal data — Transfer to a third part, including within the same institution, of data concerning health — Threats to rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter — Justification — Absence

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 7 and 8; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 45/2001, Art. 2(b))

(see paras 57, 58, 61-64)
2.

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 24)
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action brought against a decision by the Cancellation Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 64(1) and 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 50(1), third para)

(see para. 44)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 November 2019 –

Pinto Teixeira v EEAS

(Case T‑667/18)

(Civil service — Rights and obligations of officials — Declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Article 16 of the Staff Regulations — Risk of incompatibility with the legitimate interests of the institution — Deadline for responding to the declaration of intention — Implicit acceptance — Prohibition on engaging in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Non-material damage)

1. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for a vested and present interest — Assessment at the time when the action was brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 18)

2. Officials — Rights and obligations — Declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Adoption of a decision by the administration — Time limit — Exceeded — Consequences — Implicit acceptance — Annulment of the decision adopted out of time (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 16) (see paras 30-36)

3. Officials — Rights and obligations — Engaging in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Limits — Compatibility with the legitimate interests of the institution — Discretion of the administration (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 16) (see paras 44, 45, 49)

4. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of those conditions not met — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 68)

5. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Causal link — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 72)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 21 February 2018 prohibiting the applicant from engaging in an outside activity pursuant to Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, secondly, compensation for the damage that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. The decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 21 February 2018 prohibiting Mr José Manuel Pinto Teixeira from engaging in an outside activity, pursuant to Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, is annulled;

2. The action is dismissed as to the remainder;
Officials — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Dismissal on grounds connected with the relationship of mutual trust — Obligation to state reasons — Discretion of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Scope

(Art. 296, second para. TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Arts 2(c), 5a, 127 and 139(1)(d))

(see paras 28-32, 36, 77, 91)
Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Definition — Procedural rule intended to enable control by the governments of the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers — Not included

(Art. 340, second para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 182/2011, Art. 3(3))

(see paras 46, 51-53, 63)
Officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Employees on short-term contracts — Specific status different from that of employees on fixed-term or permanent contracts — Justification — No discrimination

(Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Annex IIb; European Central Bank Rules for Short-term Employment)

(see paras 55, 60, 63-66, 81, 88)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 May 2020 –

Korporaciya “Masternet” v EUIPO – Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T‑681/18)

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark STAYER – Genuine use of the trade mark – Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Proof of genuine use – Categorisation of the goods in connection with which genuine use has been proved)

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 17-19)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Figurative mark STAYER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 28, 34, 39, 41-43)

3. EU trade mark – Filing application for EU trade mark – Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark – Use of the general indications in the class headings of the Nice classification – Scope (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 2(4)) (see para. 40)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 (Case R 1940/2017-5) relating to revocation proceedings between Korporaciya “Masternet” and Stayer Ibérica.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2020 –

Hermann Albers v Commission

(Case T‑597/18)

(State aid – Public transport of passengers – Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations – Obligation to establish maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility – Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) – Decision not to raise objections – Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 – Transfer of financial resources from a Land to transport authorities at municipal level – Concept of aid – Obligation to notify)

1. State aid – Concept – Grant of an advantage to the beneficiaries – Financial transfer between different levels of the public administration for the purpose of allocating financial resources between public authorities – No advantage granted to an undertaking (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 35-37, 42)

2. Competition – EU rules – Addressees – Undertakings – Concept – Exercise of an economic activity – Entity engaged in both economic and non-economic activities – Entity that can be considered as an undertaking only with regard to its economic activities (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 38-42)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 not to raise objections to the measure adopted by the Land Niedersachsen under Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) [Case SA. 46697 (2017/NN)] (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hermann Albers e.K. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2020 –

Confédération nationale du Crédit mutual and Others v ECB

(Case T‑145/18)

(Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments – Tasks entrusted to the ECB – Specific supervision powers of the ECB – Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital – Absence of individual examination)

1. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 575/2013, Arts 26(1), first subpara., (a) to (f) and 36; Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Art. 4(1)(f)) (see paras 45-50)

2. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank – Obligation to carry out an individual prudential examination (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 575/2013, Art. 92(3); Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Arts 4(1)(f) and 16(1)(c) and (2)(d)) (see paras 51, 65-72)

3. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank – Funds that may be subject to a measure requiring the implementation of a policy or special treatment – Meaning – Irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) – Included (Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Arts 4(1)(f) and 16(1)(c) and (2)(d)) (see paras 59, 60)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 8 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;
Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure – None – Amplification of an existing plea – No amplification – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see para. 66)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2020 –

VW v Commission

(Case T‑243/18)

(Civil service – Officials – Surviving spouse – Survivor’s pension – Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations – Conditions for eligibility – Duration of the marriage – Plea of illegality – Equal treatment – Principle of proportionality)

1. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility – Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint – Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 26, 27)

2. Officials – Equal treatment – Definition – Comparability of the situations at issue – Criteria for assessment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20, 21(1) and 52(1)) (see paras 42-47)

3. Officials – Pensions – Pension for surviving spouse – Conditions for granting – Discretion of the EU legislature – Judicial review – Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Arts 18 and 20) (see para. 48)

4. Officials – Pensions – Pension for surviving spouse – Conditions for granting – Minimum duration of marriage – Difference in treatment of surviving spouses by reference to the date of the marriage, before or after the termination of the deceased official’s service – Condition giving rise to a disadvantage for couples who married following the official's retirement – Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality – Justification – Fight against fraud and maintenance of the financial equilibrium of the pension scheme – Absence (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Arts 18 and 20) (see paras 51-61, 65-68, 72-76, 80-82, 85-87)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 26 June 2017 dismissing the applicant’s application for a survivor’s pension and, in so far as is necessary, of the decision rejecting the complaint against that decision of 19 January 2018.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 26 June 2017 dismissing VW’s application for a survivor’s pension;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by VW;
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned are well founded

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2018/901 and (CFSP) 2018/1656, Annex I; Council Regulations No 2017/2063, Annex IV, No 2018/899 and No 2018/1653)

(see paras 47-50, 52)
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Regulation introducing restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Venezuela – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned are well founded

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2018/901 and (CFSP) 2018/1656, Annex I; Council Regulations No 2017/2063, Annex IV, No 2018/899 and No 2018/1653)

(see paras 43-46, 48)
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Egypt – Decision to freeze funds – Adoption or maintenance on the basis of a national decision to freeze funds or on the basis of a judicial decision by an authority of a third State – Whether permissible – Condition – National decision adopted in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection – Council’s verification obligation – Obligation to state reasons – Scope

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2018/466, (CFSP) 2019/468 and (CFSP) 2020/418; Council Regulations Nos 270/2011, 2018/465, 2019/459 and 2020/416)

(see paras 51-56, 171-173)
4

The framework contract was amended by the addendum of 14 September 2017 (‘the addendum to the framework contract’), which inserted into the framework contract Article 1.14 of the special conditions, which provides, inter alia, as follows: ‘2. Pursuant to Articles 3, 7 and 8 of Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 [of 13 March 2015] on Security in the Commission [(OJ 2015 L 72, p. 41)], it is possible to carry out background checks of on-site personnel in order to prevent and monitor risks to the security of the Commission’s staff, assets and information. In addition, under the Belgian law of 11 December 1998 on classification and security clearances, security certificates and security advisory opinions …, access rights for on-site personnel to the premises of the contracting authority may be made conditional on a positive security advisory opinion to be issued by the Belgian authorities. Existing access rights remain valid until a negative security advisory opinion is issued. 3. In order to allow the Belgian authorities to issue a security advisory opinion, the contractor is required to submit the attached form (notification document) to the relevant on-site personnel. The notification documents, duly completed and signed (labelled “notification document”), are to be returned to the Commission’s Security Directorate (European Commission, HR.DS – BERL 3/190) and an up-to-date electronic list of relevant personal data, as specified in the attached form, is to be sent to “EC-SECURITY-SCREENING@ec.europa.eu” no later than 30 days after the date of the signature of the present addendum. 4. Failure or refusal to complete the notification document may result in the personnel being refused rights of access to the Commission’s buildings. … 6. … The contractor undertakes to supply only on-site personnel who have received a positive security advisory opinion for the following Commission buildings: [confidential] …’
53

As regards the first part, the applicants claim that the right to strike is a fundamental right enshrined, in particular, in the Charter and in the European Social Charter signed in Turin on 18 October 1961, as revised. They acknowledge, however, that such a right is not absolute, that it must observe the principle of proportionality and that the exercise of that right may be subject to restrictions. They submit that neither Article 55 of the Staff Regulations, which does not cover minimum service in the event of a strike, nor the framework agreement or the decision of 2 July 2018 can serve as law, within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter, which permits limitations on the right to strike. The applicants claim that it is commonly accepted that the right to strike in the public sector must be weighed against the need to guarantee essential services. They refer to the Committee on Freedom of Association of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which distinguishes essential services from other services. They point out that the Parliament has never established clear and unambiguous rules to determine which services may prove to be essential in order to ensure continuity of service. According to the applicants, if such rules had already been established, that would have made it possible to demonstrate, first, the legitimacy of the objective pursued and, secondly, the necessity of the restriction. In the present case, according to the applicants, the decision of 2 July 2018 does not pursue a legitimate objective and is disproportionate.
4.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Application for registration of a sign for all the goods or services falling within the same category — Lack of distinctive character in relation only to certain products falling within that category not precluding recognition of lack of distinctiveness of the sign in relation to products in that category as a whole (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 65)
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Precluded

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation2017/1001, Art. 72)

(see para. 21)
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Definition — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 28-31)