do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-71/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Italy v Commission (Rules on languages — Notice of Open Competition for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of financial economics and macroeconomics — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competition to three languages — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Discrimination based on language — Interests of the service — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, linguistic discrimination, macroeconomics, principle of proportionality, staff regulations, use of languages








C_2021289EN.01003302.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/33






Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-71/18) (1)

(Rules on languages - Notice of Open Competition for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of financial economics and macroeconomics - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competition to three languages - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Interests of the service - Proportionality)
(2021/C 289/49)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Vernier, G. Gattinara and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/339/17 organised to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Financial economics and 2. Macroeconomics (OJ 2017 C 386 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/339/17 organised to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Financial economics and 2. Macroeconomics;










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 112, 26.3.2018.
Case T-365/20: Order of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark consisting in wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021297EN.01004301.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/43






Order of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe)
(Case T-365/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting in wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2021/C 297/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Linz am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 (Case R 1706/2019-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting in wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Birkenstock Sales GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Case T-312/21: Action brought on 2 June 2021 — SY v Commission
Date: 2021-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, recruitment








C_2021310EN.01003601.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/36






Action brought on 2 June 2021 — SY v Commission
(Case T-312/21)
(2021/C 310/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: SY (represented by: T. Walberer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, and Articles 263 and 265 TFEU, the applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the reserve list of the competition EPSO/AD/374/19-1; the decisions to recruit the candidates included on that reserve list; the decisions of the Selection Board of 21 April 2021 and 14 January 2021 not to include the applicant on the reserve list in the field of Competition Law; the Addendum to the Notice of Competition EPSO/AD/374/19-1 of 5 November 2020; and the applicant’s invitation of 20 November 2020;










—


in the alternative, annul the decisions of the Selection Board of 21 April 2021 and 14 January 2021 relating to the applicant and, in the judgment, provide the defendant with the necessary detailed guidelines for the lawful restoration of the applicant to his legal position prior to the infringement of his rights, which would enable the defendant to include the applicant in the reserve list, either immediately or after a reassessment of his performance; and annul the Addendum to the Notice of Competition EPSO/AD/374/19-1 of 5 November 2020; and the applicant’s invitation of 20 November 2020;










—


declare that the defendant infringed Article 265 TFEU by failing to issue a decision in respect of the applicant’s administrative complaint of 17 January 2021;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: The retroactive amendment of the selection procedure is unlawful, because it lacks a legal basis, and due to countervailing rights as well as infringement of legal clarity, the obligation to state reasons, and rights of participation.










2.


Second plea in law: The prohibition of discrimination was infringed in relation to the applicant’s pre-existing condition, due to the defendant’s failure to provide him with special accommodations for the assessment.










3.


Third plea in law: Because of a time delay, the applicant was discriminated against compared to the participants in the fully remote Assessment Centre.










4.


Fourth plea in law: The applicant was discriminated against compared to the staff members of the defendant.
Case T-856/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Franz Schröder v EUIPO — RDS Design (MONTANA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark MONTANA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Admission of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, architecture, building industry, furniture industry, product design, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021278EN.01004102.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/41






Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Franz Schröder v EUIPO — RDS Design (MONTANA)
(Case T-856/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark MONTANA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Admission of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 278/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark) (represented by: J. Viinberg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 (Case R 2394/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Franz Schröder and RDS Design.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders RDS Design ApS to bear its own costs;






(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Decision (EU) 2021/928 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 2 June 2021 appointing a Judge to the General Court
Date: 2021-06-02
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2021203EN.01001601.xml










9.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 203/16








            DECISION (EU) 2021/928 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 2 June 2021
         
appointing a Judge to the General Court


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The terms of office of 23 Judges of the General Court expired on 31 August 2019.












(2)


In that context, Ms Maja BRKAN has been nominated for the post of Judge of the General Court.












(3)


The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of this candidate to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court.












(4)


Ms Maja BRKAN should therefore be appointed for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision to 31 August 2025,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Ms Maja BRKAN is hereby appointed Judge of the General Court for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision to 31 August 2025.


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




Done at Brussels, 2 June 2021.


The President

N. BRITO
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9637 — IAG/Air Europa) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 209/07
Date: 2021-06-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: airline, economic concentration, holding company, merger control








C_2021209EN.01002501.xml










2.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/25






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9637 — IAG/Air Europa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 209/07)

1.   
On 25 May 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A. (‘IAG’, Spain and United Kingdom),










—


Air Europa Líneas Aéreas, S.A.U.; Aeronova S.L.U.; and León Activos Aeronáuticos , S.L.U. (together ‘Air Europa’, Spain).




IAG acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Air Europa.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for IAG: holding company of airlines British Airways, Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus, and Level;










—


for Air Europa: airline serving primarily destinations in Europe and South America.






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9637 — IAG/Air Europa
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-183/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Schneider v EUIPO — Raths (Teslaplatte) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Teslaplatte — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, metal product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021278EN.01004302.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/43






Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Schneider v EUIPO — Raths (Teslaplatte)
(Case T-183/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Teslaplatte - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 278/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Christian Schneider (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: R. Buttron, 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, intervener before the General Court: Oliver Raths (Männedorf, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Jacobs and M. Maybaum, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 (Case R 247/2019-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Raths and Mr Schneider.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Christian Schneider to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.