do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-309/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Klein v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Directive 93/42/EEC — Harmonised system for the safety and health protection of patients, users and, where appropriate, other persons, with regard to the use of medical devices — Article 8 — Notification of a decision prohibiting placing on the market — No position adopted by the Commission — Article 18 — Wrongful CE marking — Harm — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link)
Date: 2016-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EC conformity marking, fundamental rights, harmonisation of standards, indemnification, market approval, medical device, product safety, safety standard








C_2016410EN.01001001.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/10





Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Klein v Commission
(Case T-309/10 RENV) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Directive 93/42/EEC - Harmonised system for the safety and health protection of patients, users and, where appropriate, other persons, with regard to the use of medical devices - Article 8 - Notification of a decision prohibiting placing on the market - No position adopted by the Commission - Article 18 - Wrongful CE marking - Harm - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link))
(2016/C 410/11)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Christoph Klein (Großgmain, Austria) (represented initially by: H.-J. Ahlt and M. Ahlt, and subsequently by: H.-J. Ahlt, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, and C. Winkler, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the breach by the Commission of its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Christoph Klein, the European Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
Case T-539/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — LLR-G5 v EUIPO Glycan Finance (SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative EU trade mark SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5 — Earlier international word marks Silicium Organique G5- Glycan 5-Si-Glycan-5-Si-G5 and Silicium Organique G5 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016410EN.01001901.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/19





Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — LLR-G5 v EUIPO Glycan Finance (SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5)
(Case T-539/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative EU trade mark SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5 - Earlier international word marks Silicium Organique G5- Glycan 5-Si-Glycan-5-Si-G5 and Silicium Organique G5 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 410/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LLR-G5 Ltd (Castlebar, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Glycan Finance Corp. Ltd (Sheffield, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2015 (Case R 291/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Glycan Finance Corp. and LLR-G5.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LLR-G5 Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Case T-362/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Lacamanda Group v EUIPO — Woolley (HENLEY) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HENLEY — Earlier United Kingdom and EU word marks HENLEYS — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark)
Date: 2016-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016410EN.01001501.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/15





Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Lacamanda Group v EUIPO — Woolley (HENLEY)
(Case T-362/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark HENLEY - Earlier United Kingdom and EU word marks HENLEYS - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark))
(2016/C 410/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: The Lacamanda Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nigel Woolley (Braceborough, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2015 (Case R 2255/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between The Lacamanda Group and Nigel Woolley.

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 24 April 2015 (Case R 2255/2012-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of The Lacamanda Group Ltd;










3.


Orders Mr Nigel Woolley to bear his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-690/16: Action brought on 28 September 2016 — Enrico Colombo and Giacomo Corinti v Commission
Date: 2016-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, Joint Research Centre, Lombardy, award of contract, building services, equal treatment, indemnification, maintenance, right to justice, tendering








C_2017022EN.01003702.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/37





Action brought on 28 September 2016 — Enrico Colombo and Giacomo Corinti v Commission
(Case T-690/16)
(2017/C 022/52)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Enrico Colombo SpA (Sesto Calende, Italy) and Giacomo Corinti (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: R. Colombo and G. Turri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the award decision (details and content unknown) communicated by note of 20 July 2016, Ref. Ares (2016) 371182, in which the European Commission (JRC — Ispra site management) awarded the contract in procedure JRC/IPR/2016/C.4/0002/OC concerning a framework agreement for works to construct and maintain water pipes and district heating/cooling substations at the Joint Research Centre in Ispra to the tender submitted by the concession holder;










—


annul the note of 20 July 2016 Ref. Ares (2016) 371182, in which the European Commission (JRC — Ispra site management) communicated the result of the tendering procedure;










—


annul the minutes of the award committee of 13 May 2016 and 28 June 2016;










—


order, primarily, that compensation be awarded for the harm suffered, in kind, including by means of a declaration of invalidity, annulment or ineffectiveness of the contract, whose content and details are unknown, signed on 19 August 2016 by the Commission and the concession holder, the latter being subsequently replaced;










—


order, in the alternative, that commensurate compensation be paid for the harm suffered, equivalent to EUR 500 000,00or whatever greater or lesser amount the Court considers fair, together with interest and monetary indexation to the date of actual payment.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law: (i) infringement of Articles 105 and 107 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1), (ii) infringement of the Lex specialis concerning the tender in question, (iii) infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the right to due process, and (iv) misuse of power in the present case.
The applicants claim in that regard that the tender submitted by the concession holder should have been excluded on the ground that it does not meet the requirements of legal capacity and technical requirements imposed by the Lex specialis.
Case T-600/15: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — PAN Europe and Others v European Commission (Actions for annulment — Plant-protection products — Active substance sulfoxaflor — Inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: apiculture, insecticide, market approval, ownership, plant health control, protection of animals, right of establishment








C_2016428EN.01001602.xml










21.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/16





Order of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — PAN Europe and Others v European Commission
(Case T-600/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Plant-protection products - Active substance sulfoxaflor - Inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 428/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium), Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1295 of 27 July 2015, approving the active substance sulfoxaflor, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2015 L 199, p. 8).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene from the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), Dow AgroSciences Ltd and Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA.










3.


Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life) and Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


PAN Europe, Bee Life, Unaapi, the Commission, ECPA, Dow AgroSciences and Dow AgroSciences Iberica shall each bear their own costs in relation to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case T-400/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v EUIPO — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CITRUS SATURDAY — Earlier national word mark CITRUS — Late submission of documents — Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 19 and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2016-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, education, entrepreneurship, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016410EN.01001502.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/15





Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v EUIPO — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY)
(Case T-400/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CITRUS SATURDAY - Earlier national word mark CITRUS - Late submission of documents - Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 19 and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
(2016/C 410/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pita Negrão, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: University College London (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2015 (Case R 2109/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ms Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto and University College London.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Case T-693/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission
Date: 2016-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, disciplinary proceedings, expatriate worker, indemnification, pay scale, principle of proportionality, promotion, rights of the defence, third country








C_2016441EN.01002701.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/27






Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission
(Case T-693/16 P)
(2016/C 441/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: HG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15;










—


in consequence thereof, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly,






—


annul Decision CMS 13-005 of the Tripartite appointing authority in so far as it provides for deferment of the appellant’s advancement to a higher salary step for 18 months and for payment of compensation in respect of damage assessed by the decision at EUR 108 596,35;










—


so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the appellant’s complaint;










—


in the alternative, reduce the financial penalty contained in Decision CMS 13-005;










—


order the respondent to pay compensation in respect of the non-material harm and reputational damage suffered by the appellant, assessed at EUR 20 000;










—


order the respondent to pay the costs in their entirety;














—


order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant invokes four grounds.






1.


First ground, concerning the appellant’s financial liability, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) failed to rule on one of the complaints of the appellant concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the CST committed several errors of law and distorted the evidence in the case file.










2.


Second ground, alleging procedural defects in the preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the contested decision, infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, breach of the obligation to state reasons and errors of law committed by the CST.










3.


Third ground, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons on the part of the Commission and the CST.










4.


Fourth ground, alleging that the CST erred in law and fact in relation to the first complaint upheld against the appellant. Furthermore, the CST disregarded its obligation to provide reasons.
Case T-593/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — The Art Company B & S v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (THE ART OF RAW) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark THE ART OF RAW — Earlier national and EU figurative marks art and earlier EU figurative mark The Art Company — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016419EN.01004401.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/44





Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — The Art Company B & S v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (THE ART OF RAW)
(Case T-593/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark THE ART OF RAW - Earlier national and EU figurative marks art and earlier EU figurative mark The Art Company - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 419/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, Spain) (represented by: J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2015 (Case R 1980/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between The Art Company B & S and G-Star Raw.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders The Art Company B & S, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.