do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-660/19: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Universität Bremen v REA (Action for annulment — Grant proposal — Horizon Europe — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation — Call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 — REA decision rejecting a proposal — No representation by a lawyer — Manifest inadmissibility of the action)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, Framework Programme for Research and Development, financial aid, invitation to tender








C_2021053EN.01004101.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/41






Order of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Universität Bremen v REA
(Case T-660/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Grant proposal - Horizon Europe - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 - REA decision rejecting a proposal - No representation by a lawyer - Manifest inadmissibility of the action)
(2021/C 53/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Universität Bremen (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: Professor C. Schmid, University Professor)

Defendants: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of REA decision Ares(2019) 4590599 of 16 July 2019, rejecting the proposal presented by the applicant within the framework of the call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Universität Bremen shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Research Executive Agency (REA).






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case T-189/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Haikal v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to a fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Right to carry on an economic activity — Right to respect for private and family life)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021062EN.01002701.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/27






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Haikal v Council
(Case T-189/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Right to carry on an economic activity - Right to respect for private and family life)
(2021/C 62/32)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Maen Haikal (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Maen Haikal to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Case T-730/20: Action brought on 16 December 2020 — ON v Commission
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, indemnification, residence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021044EN.01005701.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/57






Action brought on 16 December 2020 — ON v Commission
(Case T-730/20)
(2021/C 44/79)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ON (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the PMO.1 of 12 March 2020 for the recovery of the sums unduly paid in accordance with Article 85 of the Staff Regulations as from 1 February 2015;










—


if necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint of 3 September 2020;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations in that the conditions for the application of that article are not satisfied. In that regard, the applicant claims inter alia that the authority has not shown that he knew or ought to have known that he was not entitled to the expatriation allowance since his sole prior appointment, that is 2009.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the ‘reasonable time’ principle. The applicant invokes in that regard the fact that that failure to observe the reasonable time resulted in the loss of the opportunity to demonstrate the existence of a principal habitual residence outside the United Kingdom for the period concerned, it being specified that obligations to keep records do not usually exceed a period of ten years.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging maladministration by the authority resulting in its liability to pay compensation. According to the applicant, the fault consists in the authority’s error in fixing his pecuniary rights at the time he took up employment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2195 of 16 December 2020 approving non-minor amendments to the product specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Monti Iblei’ (PDO))
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2020434EN.01003001.xml










23.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 434/30








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/2195
of 16 December 2020
         
approving non-minor amendments to the product specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Monti Iblei’ (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Monti Iblei’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2325/97 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the product specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Monti Iblei’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 December 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2325/97 of 24 November 1997 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 33).

(3)  
            OJ C 274, 19.8.2020, p. 8.
Case C-684/20 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by Eleanor Sharpston against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2020 in Case T-180/20, Sharpston v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, admissibility, member of the Court of Justice (EU), withdrawal from the EU








C_2021310EN.01000901.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/9






Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by Eleanor Sharpston against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2020 in Case T-180/20, Sharpston v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
(Case C-684/20 P)
(2021/C 310/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Eleanor Sharpston (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister-at-Law, J. Robb, Barrister, J. Flynn QC and H. Mercer QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
By order of 16 June 2021, the Court of Justice (First Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10042 — Vista Equity Partners/Francisco Partners Management/SmartBear Software) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 3/03
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, technology








C_2021003EN.01000301.xml










6.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10042 — Vista Equity Partners/Francisco Partners Management/SmartBear Software)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 3/03)
On 16 December 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M10042. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-176/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — 3V Sigma v ECHA (REACH — Substance evaluation — UVASORB HEB — Decision of the ECHA requesting further information — Article 46(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Request seeking to identify potential transformation or degradation products of the substance — Proportionality — Need for the additional study requested — Relevant conditions and realistic conditions — Study temperature — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical compound, disclosure of information, marketing standard, product safety, public health, scientific report, toxic substance








C_2021053EN.01003401.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/34






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — 3V Sigma v ECHA
(Case T-176/19) (1)

(REACH - Substance evaluation - UVASORB HEB - Decision of the ECHA requesting further information - Article 46(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Request seeking to identify potential transformation or degradation products of the substance - Proportionality - Need for the additional study requested - Relevant conditions and realistic conditions - Study temperature - Manifest error of assessment)
(2021/C 53/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: 3V Sigma SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Bryant and S. Hainsworth, Solicitors, and by D. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: A. Hautamäki, J. Alaranta and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs, and S. Heimerl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision A-004-2017 of the ECHA Board of Appeal of 15 January 2019 in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the ECHA of 20 December 2016 requiring that further information be provided about the substance UVASORB HEB and in so far as the deadline for providing that information was set at 22 October 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders 3V Sigma SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim relief;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Case T-187/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — VP v Cedefop (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Request for renewal of a contract for an indefinite period — Decision not to renew — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Liability — Material damage — Non-material damage)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, full-time employment, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2021053EN.01003001.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/30






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — VP v Cedefop
(Case T-187/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Request for renewal of a contract for an indefinite period - Decision not to renew - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Liability - Material damage - Non-material damage)
(2021/C 53/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VP (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (represented by: M. Brugia, acting as Agent, and by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for (i) annulment of Cedefop’s decision of 12 May 2017 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite period and, as far as necessary, of the decision of 1 December 2017 rejecting her complaint of 9 August 2017 against the decision of 12 May 2017 and (ii) compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 12 May 2017 not to renew VP’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;










2.


Annuls the decision of 1 December 2017 rejecting VP’s complaint;










3.


Orders Cedefop to pay EUR 30 000 as compensation for the material damage sustained by VP;










4.


Orders Cedefop to pay EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non-material damage sustained by VP;










5.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










6.


Orders Cedefop to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Case T-520/20: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Bonicelli v Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — 2019 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Replacement of the contested act in the course of the proceedings — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, promotion








C_2021053EN.01004301.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/43






Order of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Bonicelli v Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking
(Case T-520/20) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - 2019 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Replacement of the contested act in the course of the proceedings - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 53/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Tullio Bonicelli (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented by: G. T. Poszler, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 24 October 2019 not to include the name of the applicant on the final list of officials promoted within the framework of the 2019 promotion exercise and, secondly, of its decision of 8 May 2020 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy shall pay its own costs and the costs incurred by Mr Tullio Bonicelli.






(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Case T-863/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard (PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD — Previous EU word marks GALLIMARD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Conceptual comparison — Surnames — Independent distinctive role — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic publishing, registered trade mark, software, teaching materials, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2021053EN.01003802.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/38






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard (PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD)
(Case T-863/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD - Previous EU word marks GALLIMARD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Conceptual comparison - Surnames - Independent distinctive role - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 53/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Production Christian Gallimard (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Dreyfuss-Bechmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-A. Bénazéraf and Y. Diringer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 (Case R-2316/2018-5) regarding opposition proceedings between Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française and Production Christian Gallimard.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Production Christian Gallimard to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Case T-860/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Alkemie Group v EUIPO — Mann & Schröder (ALKEMIE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ALKEMIE — Earlier EU word mark Alkmene — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, cosmetic product, electronic commerce, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2021053EN.01003801.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/38






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Alkemie Group v EUIPO — Mann & Schröder (ALKEMIE)
(Case T-860/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ALKEMIE - Earlier EU word mark Alkmene - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 53/50)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mann & Schröder GmbH (Siegelsbach, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2231/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Mann & Schröder and Alkemie Group.

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 16 September 2019 (Case R 2231/2018-2) to the extent that it dismissed Alkemie Group sp. z o.o’s action in respect of ‘dietary aids’ in Class 5;










2.


Dismisses the action for the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.