do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-514/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — DI v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Reimbursement of medical expenses and education expenses — Forgery — Disciplinary proceedings — Dismissal — Criminal proceedings — No further action taken — Acquittal — Competence of the Executive Board — Legal certainty — Time-barred disciplinary proceedings — Adage according to which ‘disciplinary proceedings arising out of a criminal offence must await the outcome of the criminal trial’ — Presumption of innocence — Impartiality of the Disciplinary Committee — Error of law — Probative value of the evidence — Reasonable time — Proportionality of the penalty — Intensity of the judicial review — Liability)
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: allowances and expenses, criminal proceedings, damages, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, health expenditure, judicial review, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2021297EN.01003501.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/35






Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — DI v ECB
(Case T-514/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Reimbursement of medical expenses and education expenses - Forgery - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal - Criminal proceedings - No further action taken - Acquittal - Competence of the Executive Board - Legal certainty - Time-barred disciplinary proceedings - Adage according to which ‘disciplinary proceedings arising out of a criminal offence must await the outcome of the criminal trial’ - Presumption of innocence - Impartiality of the Disciplinary Committee - Error of law - Probative value of the evidence - Reasonable time - Proportionality of the penalty - Intensity of the judicial review - Liability)
(2021/C 297/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Malfrère and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decision of 7 May 2019 dismissing the applicant without notice on disciplinary grounds and of its decision of 25 June 2019 refusing to reopen the disciplinary proceedings, second, an order that the applicant be reinstated as from 11 May 2019 and, third, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions and by reason of the length of the disciplinary proceedings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders DI to bear his own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the European Central Bank (ECB), which shall bear the rest of its costs.






(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Case T-130/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO — (SIENNA SELECTION) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SIENNA SELECTION — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Name of a colour — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, smoking, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2021297EN.01003902.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/39






Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO — (SIENNA SELECTION)
(Case T-130/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SIENNA SELECTION - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Name of a colour - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 297/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2019 (Case R 1675/2019 5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SIENNA SELECTION as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 December 2019 (Case R 1675/2019-5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Philip Morris Products SA.






(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Case T-325/21: Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Vitalsss plus)
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, non-alcoholic beverage, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021297EN.01005001.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/50






Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Vitalsss plus)
(Case T-325/21)
(2021/C 297/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska and R. Skubisz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Vitalsss plus — Application for registration No 17 969 083

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 April 2021 in Cases R 503/2020-1 and R 647/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, by the intervener.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in connection with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-665/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Ryanair v Commission (Condor; Covid-19) (State aid — German air transport market — Public loan guaranteed by Germany to Condor Flugdienst in the context of the COVID 19 pandemic — Decision not to raise any objections — Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence — Article 107(2)(b) TFEU — Assessment of damages — Causal link — Obligation to state reasons — Maintenance of the effects of the decision)
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, indemnification, loan, low cost airline








C_2021297EN.01004202.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/42






Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Ryanair v Commission (Condor; Covid-19)
(Case T-665/20) (1)

(State aid - German air transport market - Public loan guaranteed by Germany to Condor Flugdienst in the context of the COVID 19 pandemic - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Article 107(2)(b) TFEU - Assessment of damages - Causal link - Obligation to state reasons - Maintenance of the effects of the decision)
(2021/C 297/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, F. Tomat and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, R. Kanitz and P.L. Krüger, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents), Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Kelsterbach, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel and S. Blazek, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 2795 final of 26 April 2020 on State aid SA.56867 (2020/N, ex 2020/PN) — Germany — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID 19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 2795 final of 26 April 2020 on State aid SA.56867 (2020/N, ex 2020/PN) — Germany — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH;










2.


Suspends the effects of the annulment of that decision pending the adoption of a new decision by the Commission under Article 108 TFEU. Those effects are to be preserved for a period not exceeding two months from the date of delivery of this judgment if the Commission decides to adopt such a new decision under Article 108(3) TFEU, and for a reasonable further period if the Commission decides to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU;










3.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, and to pay those incurred by Ryanair DAC;










4.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and Condor Flugdienst to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.
Case T-177/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v ECHA (REACH — Establishment of a list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Inclusion of phenanthrene on that list — Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Manifest error of assessment — Weight of evidence determination — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard)
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, health risk, organic chemical, petroleum product, principle of proportionality








C_2021297EN.01003201.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/32






Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v ECHA
(Case T-177/19) (1)

(REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Inclusion of phenanthrene on that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Weight of evidence determination - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard)
(2021/C 297/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical BVBA (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: A. Kołtunowska and A. Bartl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, C. Buchanan and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Petroleum Refiners Association (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and T. Delille, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, E. Leclerc, T. Stehelin and W. Zemamta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA Decision ED/88/2018 of 19 December 2018, in so far as it places phenanthrene on the list of substances identified as being of very high concern provided for in Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical BVBA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);










3.


Orders the French Republic and the European Petroleum Refiners Association to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Case T-322/21: Action brought on 9 June 2021 — TB v ENISA
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), job mobility, principle of legal certainty, reassignment








C_2021329EN.01003101.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/31






Action brought on 9 June 2021 — TB v ENISA
(Case T-322/21)
(2021/C 329/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TB (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the implicit decision taken by the ENISA Executive Director not to identify the post of Head of Unit of Policy Office and the post of Head of Unit of Finance and Procurement for internal mobility (the ‘implicit decision’);






—


The implicit decision has been revealed by:






—


the Administrative Notice 2020-11 presenting the conclusions of the dialogues for internal mobility of 1 September 2020, published on 3 September 2020 (the ‘Conclusions’) according to which three posts of Head of Units, corresponding namely to the Secured Infrastructure and Service Unit (COD1), the Data Security and Standardisation Unit (COD2) and the Operational Security Unit (COD3) have been identified for internal mobility;










—


the decisions of 5 August 2020 published on the ENISA website concerning two vacancies for open competition for the posts of Head of Unit for Executive Director Office and for Corporate Support Services.


















—


in so far as necessary, annul the Conclusions and the decisions of 5 August 2020;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 3 March 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the implicit decision, the Conclusions and the decisions of 5 August 2020.










—


order the defendant to pay all 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, alleging lack of clarity and transparency, breach of the principle of legal certainty, manifest error of assessment and violation of principle 6 of MB (Management Board) Decision 2020/5.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging lack of motivation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of Annex 1 of the Administrative Notice.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the 7th and 8th principles of the MB Decision 2020/5, violation of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and violation of the duty of care.
Case T-611/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Iniciativa ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ v Commission (Institutional law — European citizens’ initiative — ‘EU law, minority rights and democratisation of Spanish institutions’ — New EU framework to strengthen the rule of law — Refusal of registration — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — No invitation to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union — Article 4(2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 296 TFEU)
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law, European citizenship, Spain, competence of the institution, democratisation, petition, powers of the institutions (EU), rights of minorities, rule of law








C_2021297EN.01003701.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/37






Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Iniciativa ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ v Commission
(Case T-611/19) (1)

(Institutional law - European citizens’ initiative - ‘EU law, minority rights and democratisation of Spanish institutions’ - New EU framework to strengthen the rule of law - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - No invitation to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union - Article 4(2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 296 TFEU)
(2021/C 297/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Citizens’ committee of the initiative ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ (represented by: G. Boye, I. Elbal Sánchez, E. Valcuende Sillero and I. González Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1182 of 3 July 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘EU law, minority rights and democratisation of Spanish institutions’ (OJ 2019 L 185, p. 46).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the citizens’ committee of the initiative ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Case T-580/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Borborudi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list — Error of assessment — Article 266 TFEU)
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, nuclear non-proliferation








C_2021297EN.01003602.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/36






Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Borborudi v Council
(Case T-580/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Error of assessment - Article 266 TFEU)
(2021/C 297/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855 of 27 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2019 L 140, p. 1) in so far as it retains the name of the applicant on the list set out in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855 of the Council of the European Union of 27 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it concerns Mr Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi;










2.


Orders the Council to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
List of members of the primary dealer network 2021/C 219 I/03
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EAEC, European Commission, borrowing, capital market, credit institution, dealer, economic recovery, issue of securities, securities








CI2021219EN.01000701.xml










9.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 219/7






List of members of the primary dealer network
(2021/C 219 I/03)
In accordance with Article 13(2) of Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2021/625 of 14 April 2021 on the establishment of the primary dealer network and the definition of eligibility criteria for lead and co-lead mandates for syndicated transactions for the purposes of the borrowing activities by the Commission on behalf of the Union and of the European Atomic Energy Community (1), the list of members of the primary dealer network shall be published once a year in the Official Journal of the European Union.











1.


ABN AMRO Bank N.V.










2.


Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.










3.


Banco Santander S.A.










4.


Barclays Bank Ireland Plc










5.


BNP Paribas S.A.










6.


BofA Securities Europe S.A.










7.


Bred Banque Populaire










8.


Citigroup Global Markets Europe AG










9.


Commerzbank AG










10.


Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A.










11.


Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank S.A.










12.


Danske Bank A/S










13.


DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale










14.


Deutsche Bank AG










15.


DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank










16.


Erste Group Bank AG










17.


Goldman Sachs Bank Europe SE










18.


HSBC Continental Europe S.A.










19.


Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.










20.


Jefferies GmbH










21.


J.P. Morgan AG










22.


KBC Bank N.V.










23.


Landesbank Baden-Württemberg










24.


Landesbank Hessen-Thueringen Girozentrale










25.


Morgan Stanley Europe SE










26.


MPS Capital Services Banca per le Imprese S.p.A.










27.


National Bank of Greece S.A.










28.


Natixis S.A.










29.


Natwest Markets N.V.










30.


Nomura Financial Products Europe GmbH










31.


Norddeutsche Landesbank–Girozentrale










32.


Nordea Bank Abp










33.


Piraeus Bank S.A.










34.


Royal Bank of Canada Capital Markets (Europe) GmbH










35.


Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB)










36.


Societe Generale S.A.










37.


Swedbank AB










38.


TD Global Finance Unlimited Company










39.


UniCredit Bank AG










(1)  OJ L 131, 16.4.2021, p. 170.