do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-725/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Clestra Hauserman v Parliament (Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — Works relating to the ‘Removable partitioning — doors’ of the project to extend and modernise the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low tender — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, damages, equal treatment, improvement of housing, invitation to tender, tendering








C_2019164EN.01004401.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/44






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Clestra Hauserman v Parliament
(Case T-725/17) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Works relating to the ‘Removable partitioning - doors’ of the project to extend and modernise the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low tender - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
(2019/C 164/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Clestra Hauserman (Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France) (represented by: J. Gehin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Naglič and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, claim under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 24 August 2017 adopted in the context of tendering procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-16-AO8 concerning Lot 55, entitled ‘Removable partitioning — doors’, of the project to extend and modernise the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg, rejecting the applicant’s bid and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, claim under Article 268 TFEU for compensation in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Clestra Hauserman to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.







(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Case T-787/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Parfümerie Akzente v EUIPO (GlamHair) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark GlamHair — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, cosmetic product, packaging, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019164EN.01004501.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/45






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Parfümerie Akzente v EUIPO (GlamHair)
(Case T-787/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark GlamHair - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 164/47)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Parfümerie Akzente GmbH (Pfedelbach, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 82/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign GlamHair as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Parfümerie Akzente GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Case T-105/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 –Deray v EUIPO — Charles Claire (LILI LA TIGRESSE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark LILI LA TIGRESSE — Earlier EU word mark TIGRESS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019164EN.01004602.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/46






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 –Deray v EUIPO — Charles Claire (LILI LA TIGRESSE)
(Case T-105/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark LILI LA TIGRESSE - Earlier EU word mark TIGRESS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 164/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: André Deray (Bry-sur-Marne, France) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Charles Claire LLP (Weybridge, Surrey, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 (Case R 1244/2017-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Charles Claire and Mr Deray.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Mr André Deray to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Case T-180/19: Action brought on 26 March 2019 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles)
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: beverage, designs and models, packaging product








C_2019164EN.01006001.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/60






Action brought on 26 March 2019 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles)
(Case T-180/19)
(2019/C 164/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bibita Group SHPK (Tirana, Albania) (represented by: C. Seyfert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Benkomers OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 3797 091-0001 (Beverage bottles)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 1070/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the contested Community design registered under No 3797 091-0001 invalid, on all the grounds set in the application;










—


order the defendant and the proprietor to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Third Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;










—


order EUIPO and the potential other party to the present proceedings to pay the entirety of the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 6(1) and 25(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Case T-480/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Greece — One-off and flat-rate financial corrections — Cross compliance — Monitoring of statutory management requirements — Risk analysis — Assessment of the financial loss — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, eligibility criteria, financial loss, principle of proportionality, risk management








C_2019172EN.01002901.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/29






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-480/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - One-off and flat-rate financial corrections - Cross compliance - Monitoring of statutory management requirements - Risk analysis - Assessment of the financial loss - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)
(2019/C 172/40)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and Α. Vassilopoulou, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 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 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it imposes on the Hellenic Republic, following the investigation under reference XC/2014/002/GR, one-off and flat-rate financial corrections amounting in total to EUR 1182 054.17 because of weaknesses in the application of cross compliance (EAGF and EAFRD).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Case C-253/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 26 March 2019 — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conflict of jurisdiction, financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial proceedings, real property, residence








C_2019206EN.01002802.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 26 March 2019 — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA
(Case C-253/19)
(2019/C 206/33)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants at first instance and appellants on appeal: MH, NI

Defendants at first instance and respondents on appeal: OJ, Novo Banco SA

Question referred

Under Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, do the courts of a Member State have jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings in respect of a citizen whose sole immovable asset is located in that State, while he, along with his family unit, is habitually resident in another Member State where he is in paid employment?


(1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 192).
Case C-621/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Republic of Lithuania (Appeal — Rules on languages — Open competition for the recruitment of administrators — Notice of competition — Administrators (AD 5) — Administrators (AD 6) in the field of data protection — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competitions to English, French and German — Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Discrimination based on language — Justification — Interests of the service — Judicial review)
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), data protection, language skills, linguistic discrimination, official language, powers of the institutions (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019187EN.01000401.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/4






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Republic of Lithuania
(Case C-621/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules on languages - Open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Notice of competition - Administrators (AD 5) - Administrators (AD 6) in the field of data protection - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competitions to English, French and German - Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service - Judicial review)
(2019/C 187/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Republic of Lithuania

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


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










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.