do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-428/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2021 — European arrest warrant issued against HM; other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European arrest warrant, criminal proceedings, extradition, offence, rights of the defence








C_2021368EN.01001202.xml










13.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2021 — European arrest warrant issued against HM; other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
(Case C-428/21)
(2021/C 368/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


European arrest warrant issued against: HM

Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 27(3)(g) and (4) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection, be interpreted as meaning that:






—


a surrendered person must be able to exercise his or her right to be heard in relation to a request for an extension of the offences in the issuing Member State when a judicial authority of that Member State grants him or her a hearing relating to the possible renunciation of the entitlement to the speciality rule as referred to in Article 27(3)(f) of the Framework Decision, or










—


must that person be able to exercise his or her right to be heard in the Member State which previously surrendered him or her to the executing judicial authority in the proceedings relating to the request for consent to extend the offences?














2.


If a surrendered person must be able to exercise his or her right to be heard in relation to the decision on a request for consent to extend the offences, as referred to in Article 27(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in the Member State which previously surrendered him or her, in what way must that Member State enable him or her to do so?






(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case T-181/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Stark Gugger) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the Stark Gugger apple variety — Technical examination — Testing location — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, pip fruit, plant breeding, plant variety right, rights of the defence








C_2021349EN.01003301.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/33






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Stark Gugger)
(Case T-181/20) (1)

(Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the Stark Gugger apple variety - Technical examination - Testing location - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)
(2021/C 349/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft (Terlano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (represented by: M. Ekvad, O. Lamberti and F. Mattina, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 January 2020 (Case A 008/2018) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the Stark Gugger apple variety.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case T-164/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AQ v eu-LISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Sick leave — Termination of the contract without notice — Article 16 of the CEOS — Article 48(b) of the CEOS — Duty of care — Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Liability — Material harm — Non-material harm — Causal link)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: dismissal, indemnification, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2021357EN.01001901.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/19






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AQ v eu-LISA
(Case T-164/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Sick leave - Termination of the contract without notice - Article 16 of the CEOS - Article 48(b) of the CEOS - Duty of care - Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Liability - Material harm - Non-material harm - Causal link)
(2021/C 357/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (represented by: M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Meyer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of eu-LISA of 8 May 2018 to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 8 May 2018 by which the Executive Director of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) terminated the employment of AQ as a temporary agent;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders AQ and eu-LISA to bear their own costs;










4.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 225/2021 of 14 July 2021 amending Annex V (Free movement of workers) and Annex VIII (Right of establishment) to the EEA Agreement [2024/273]
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, Switzerland, coronavirus disease, epidemic, free movement of persons, health certificate, health control, revision of an agreement, technical specification, vaccination




L_202400273EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series L













2024/273


8.2.2024







            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 225/2021
of 14 July 2021
         
amending Annex V (Free movement of workers) and Annex VIII (Right of establishment) to the EEA Agreement [2024/273]


THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1126 of 8 July 2021 establishing the equivalence of COVID-19 certificates issued by Switzerland to the certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.












(2)


Annexes V and VIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following point is inserted after point 10a (Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1073) of Annex V to the EEA Agreement:






‘10b.



32021 D 1126: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1126 of 8 July 2021 establishing the equivalence of COVID-19 certificates issued by Switzerland to the certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 49).’






Article 2
The following point is inserted after point 11a (Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1073) of Annex VIII to the EEA Agreement:






‘11b.



32021 D 1126: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1126 of 8 July 2021 establishing the equivalence of COVID-19 certificates issued by Switzerland to the certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 49).’






Article 3
The text of Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1126 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.


Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on 14 July 2021, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).


Article 5
This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 14 July 2021.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

Rolf Einar FIFE
            





(1)  
            OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 49.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/273/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case T-527/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Aldi v EUIPO (CUCINA) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark CUCINA — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, foodstuff, meat, milk product, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021349EN.01003701.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/37






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Aldi v EUIPO (CUCINA)
(Case T-527/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark CUCINA - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 349/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Bosse and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2020 (Case R 463/2020-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign CUCINA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Case T-677/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission (Austrian Airlines; Covid-19) (State aid — Austrian air transport market — Aid granted by Austria to an airline amid the COVID-19 pandemic — Subordinated loan to Austrian Airlines — Decision not to raise any objections — Aid previously granted to the parent company of the recipient — Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence — Freedom of establishment — Free provision of services — Equal treatment — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Austria, State aid, aid to undertakings, airline, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, loan, parent company








C_2021368EN.01002201.xml










13.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/22






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission (Austrian Airlines; Covid-19)
(Case T-677/20) (1)

(State aid - Austrian air transport market - Aid granted by Austria to an airline amid the COVID-19 pandemic - Subordinated loan to Austrian Airlines - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid previously granted to the parent company of the recipient - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Freedom of establishment - Free provision of services - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons)
(2021/C 368/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Laudamotion GmbH, (Schwechat, Austria) (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 S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: R. Kanitz, J. Möller and P.-L. Krüger, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: A. Posch, J. Schmoll, G. Eberhard and S. Weber, acting as Agents), Austrian Airlines AG, (Vienna, Austria), (represented by: A. Zellhofer, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 4684 final of 6 July 2020 on State aid SA.57539 (2020/N) — Austria — COVID-19 — Aid to Austrian Airlines.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ryanair DAC and Laudamotion GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria and Austrian Airlines AG to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Case T-249/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Saab Halabi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Venezuela, economic sanctions, freedom of expression, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021349EN.01002701.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/27






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Saab Halabi v Council
(Case T-249/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)
(2021/C 349/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tarek William Saab Halabi (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, V. Piessevaux, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, 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 Tarek William Saab Halabi to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.
Case T-185/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Harmonised standards — Documents concerning four harmonised standards approved by CEN — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Protection deriving from copyright)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Committee for Standardisation, European standard, access to EU information, copyright, environmental standard, harmonisation of standards








C_2021368EN.01002001.xml










13.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/20






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission
(Case T-185/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Harmonised standards - Documents concerning four harmonised standards approved by CEN - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Protection deriving from copyright)
(2021/C 368/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Public.Resource.Org, Inc., (Sebastopol, California, United States), Right to Know CLG (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, A. Grünwald, J. Hackl and C. Nüßing, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, F. Thiran and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), and 14 other interveners, whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: U. Karpenstein, K. Dingemann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 639 final of 22 January 2019 refusing to grant a request for access to four harmonised standards adopted by CEN.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Public.Resource.Org, Inc. and Right to Know CLG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the Asociación Española de Normalización (UNE), the Asociaţia de Standardizare din România (ASRO), the Association française de normalisation (AFNOR), Austrian Standards International (ASI), the British Standards Institution (BSI), the Bureau de normalisation/Bureau voor Normalisatie (NBN), Dansk Standard (DS), the Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (DIN), the Koninklijk Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut (NEN), the Schweizerische Normen-Vereinigung (SNV), Standard Norge (SN), the Suomen Standardisoimisliitto ry (SFS), the Svenska institutet för standarder (SIS) and the Institut za standardizaciju Srbije (ISS) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Case C-439/21 P: Appeal brought on 14 July 2021 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 May 2021 in Case T-611/18, Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, generic drug, market approval, scientific report








C_2021391EN.01001301.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/13






Appeal brought on 14 July 2021 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 May 2021 in Case T-611/18, Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA
(Case C-439/21 P)
(2021/C 391/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Biogen Netherlands BV (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma S.A., European Medicines Agency, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


grant the appeal;










—


set aside the judgment under the appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court misapplied Article 277 TFEU by failing to recognize that the plea of illegality raised against the Commission’s decision of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera was inadmissible because that decision could have been challenged directly by Polpharma since it is a regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures and was of direct concern to Polpharma.
Second ground of appeal: in its assessment of the plea of illegality, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the concept of the global marketing authorisation laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1).
Third ground of appeal: the General Court misinterpreted the legal requirements for the authorisation of combination medicinal products in 1994 and failed to recognize the renewal of the Fumaderm authorisation in 2013 in its consideration of the issue.
Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of mutual recognition of assessments and decisions adopted by national authorities by concluding that, in the case at hand, this principle did not apply to the EMA and Commission.
Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court misapplied the applicable standard of judicial review in relation to scientific assessments and scientific evidence by making its own assessment of the scientific data in the file.


(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 67).
Case T-426/21: Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Assaad v Council
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, abuse of power, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of legal certainty, retroactivity of a law, right to justice








C_2021338EN.01004401.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/44






Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Assaad v Council
(Case T-426/21)
(2021/C 338/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nizar Assaad (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, G. Martin and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/751 of 6 May 2021 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/743 of 6 May 2021 (2), which amend entry 36 to Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and entry 36 to Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 (‘the Contested Measures’), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges that the Council has repeatedly stated since 2011 that the applicant is not the person listed at entry 36 to the EU’s restrictive measures on Syria. By the Contested Measures, the Council has sought to reverse this position, and now, without any justification or factual or legal basis, contends that the applicant has in fact been listed since 2011. The applicant’s grounds for annulment challenge the Council’s volte face in the Contested Measures as being based on multiple errors of assessment; unlawfully retroactive and inimical to the principle of legal certainty; an abuse and misuse of the Council’s powers; and contrary to the principle of res judicata.


(1)  OJ 2021, L 160, p. 115.

(2)  OJ 2021, L 160, p. 1.