do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-134/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — AM v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Admissibility — Time limit for submitting a request to initiate the conciliation procedure — Act adversely affecting an official — Geographical mobility allowance — Transfer to an external office — Refusal to grant the allowance — Action for annulment and for damages)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, damages, geographical mobility, indemnification, limitation of legal proceedings, reassignment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021189EN.01001602.xml










17.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/16






Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — AM v EIB
(Case T-134/19) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Admissibility - Time limit for submitting a request to initiate the conciliation procedure - Act adversely affecting an official - Geographical mobility allowance - Transfer to an external office - Refusal to grant the allowance - Action for annulment and for damages)
(2021/C 189/18)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AM (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and on Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, the annulment of the decisions of the EIB of 30 June and 11 December 2017 and, in so far as necessary, of the decision of the President of the EIB of 20 November 2018 confirming those decisions, by which it refused to grant the applicant the geographical mobility allowance and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant further to those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 30 June and 11 December 2017 in so far as they refuse AM the geographical mobility allowance;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by AM.






(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Case T-694/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — FI v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, age discrimination, civil union, cohabitation, discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, marriage, married person, principle of proportionality, survivor's benefit








C_2021163EN.01002501.xml










3.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/25






Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — FI v Commission
(Case T-694/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
(2021/C 163/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FI (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to FI;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by FI;










3.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case T-67/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ NEW YORK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ NEW YORK — Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, floor coverings, furniture industry, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2021163EN.01002801.xml










3.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/28






Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ NEW YORK)
(Case T-67/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ NEW YORK - Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 163/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 886/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Case T-7/21: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021163EN.01003502.xml










3.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/35






Order of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL)
(Case T-7/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 163/48)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Kassl Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2020 (Case R 880/2020-4), relation to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Kassl.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Case T-99/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Golvabia Innovation v EUIPO (MaxWear) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MaxWear — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, floor coverings, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021163EN.01003001.xml










3.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/30






Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Golvabia Innovation v EUIPO (MaxWear)
(Case T-99/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MaxWear - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 163/39)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Golvabia Innovation AB (Anderstorp, Sweden) (represented by: D. Thorbjörnsson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by T. von Schantz and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2019 (Case R 888/2019-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MaxWear as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Golvabia Innovation AB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Case C-708/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Von Aschenbach & Voss GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Aluminium foil originating in China — Slightly modified aluminium foil — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 — Admissibility — No action for annulment brought by the applicant in the main proceedings — Locus standi in an action for annulment)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, right of action, thin sheet








C_2021182EN.01001302.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Von Aschenbach & Voss GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
(Case C-708/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Aluminium foil originating in China - Slightly modified aluminium foil - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 - Admissibility - No action for annulment brought by the applicant in the main proceedings - Locus standi in an action for annulment)
(2021/C 182/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Von Aschenbach & Voss GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), made by decision of 21 August 2019, is inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Case C-648/20 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from Westminster Magistrates’ Court — United Kingdom) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against PI (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 8(1)(c) — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purposes of a criminal prosecution on the basis of a detention order issued by the same authority — No judicial review prior to surrender of the requested person — Consequences — Effective judicial protection — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, judicial review, public prosecutor's department, right to justice








C_2021182EN.01002101.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/21






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from Westminster Magistrates’ Court — United Kingdom) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against PI
(Case C-648/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 8(1)(c) - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purposes of a criminal prosecution on the basis of a detention order issued by the same authority - No judicial review prior to surrender of the requested person - Consequences - Effective judicial protection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(2021/C 182/29)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Westminster Magistrates’ Court

Parties to the main proceedings

PI

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection that must be afforded to a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution are not satisfied where both the European arrest warrant and the judicial decision on which that warrant is based are issued by a public prosecutor — who may be classified as an ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision — but cannot be reviewed by a court in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person by the executing Member State.


(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Case C-941/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Samohýl group a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings 3004 and 3808 — Interpretation — Regulation (EC) No 455/2007 — Spot-on solution for cats against infestations of fleas and ticks — Therapeutic or prophylactic effects)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, domestic animal, insecticide, specification of tariff heading, veterinary medicinal product








C_2021182EN.01001702.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/17






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Samohýl group a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel
(Case C-941/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings 3004 and 3808 - Interpretation - Regulation (EC) No 455/2007 - Spot-on solution for cats against infestations of fleas and ticks - Therapeutic or prophylactic effects)
(2021/C 182/24)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Samohýl group a.s.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that a product consisting of a solution intended for cats, which must be applied by local cutaneous route (spot-on) by means of pipettes (0,5 ml) and which contains the active substance fipronil (50 mg per pipette), and excipients, such as butylated hydroxyanisole E 320, butylated hydroxytoluene E 321, benzyl alcohol and diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, comes within tariff heading 3808 of the CN, as an ‘insecticide’, subject to the assessment by the referring court of all the facts at its disposal.


(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case C-160/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 March 2021 — ‘NIKOPOLIS AD ISTRUM 2010’ EOOD v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, eligibility criteria, farmer, payment








C_2021206EN.01001601.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 March 2021 — ‘NIKOPOLIS AD ISTRUM 2010’ EOOD v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’
(Case C-160/21)
(2021/C 206/20)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘NIKOPOLIS AD ISTRUM 2010’ EOOD

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Questions referred







1.


Does the term ‘payment’ used in Article 75(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy signify the conclusion of the procedure initiated on the basis of a payment claim?










2.


Does the actual receipt of the amount claimed by a farmer equate to a positive decision by the paying agency on the application for activation of payment entitlements or does the non-receipt of funds in the case of publicly notified payments for the measure concerned constitute a refusal of the claimed payment entitlements where the person has not been notified of the continuation of the procedure by way of new checks?










3.


Does the time limit under Article 75(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy require the Member States to verify the eligibility conditions before its expiry, and can that verification continue only exceptionally?










4.


Does failure to comply with the time limit under Article 75(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy constitute a tacit refusal to pay aid where a farmer has not been notified of the carrying out of supplementary checks and there is no written document in relation thereto?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).
Case C-365/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Germany) — FD v Staatliches Amt für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Mittleres Mecklenburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Direct payments — Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Article 24 — Young farmer having received an initial allocation of payment entitlements — Article 30(6) — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 — Article 28(2) — Further allocation of payment entitlements from the national reserve)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, single payment scheme, young farmer








C_2021182EN.01000401.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/4






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Germany) — FD v Staatliches Amt für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Mittleres Mecklenburg
(Case C-365/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Direct payments - Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Article 24 - Young farmer having received an initial allocation of payment entitlements - Article 30(6) - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 - Article 28(2) - Further allocation of payment entitlements from the national reserve)
(2021/C 182/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FD

Defendant: Staatliches Amt für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Mittleres Mecklenburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 30(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, read in conjunction with Article 28(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation No 1307/2013 and amending Annex X to that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a young farmer, within the meaning of Article 30(11)(a) of Regulation No 1307/2013, read in conjunction with Article 50(2) of that regulation, who has already received, under Article 24 of that regulation, an initial allocation of payment entitlements in respect of the eligible hectares which he or she has declared at the time of his or her application is entitled to receive, subsequently, a further allocation of payment entitlements from the national reserve equal to the number of additional eligible hectares that he or she now holds and for which he or she has not received any payment entitlement. That right is subject to the existence of sufficient available funds in the national or regional reserves. If that is not the case, the allocation must be made in such a way as to ensure the equal treatment of farmers eligible for entitlements under Article 30(6) of Regulation No 1307/2013 and to avoid distortions of the market and of competition.


(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.