do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-35/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres 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 subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2021349EN.01003102.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/31






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres v Council
(Case T-35/19) (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 subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment)
(2021/C 349/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (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 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 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 Antonio José Benavides Torres to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Case T-550/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón 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 subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership








C_2021349EN.01002702.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/27






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón v Council
(Case T-550/18) (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 subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)
(2021/C 349/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-429/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2021 — European arrest warrant issued against TZ; 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, rights of the defence








C_2021368EN.01001301.xml










13.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2021 — European arrest warrant issued against TZ; other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
(Case C-429/21)
(2021/C 368/13)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


European arrest warrant issued against: TZ

Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 28(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection, be interpreted as meaning:






—


that a person who has been surrendered to the issuing Member State and in respect of whom a third Member State has subsequently issued an EAW for offences committed prior to that surrender, must be able to exercise his or her right to be heard in relation to the request for consent for subsequent surrender, as referred to in Article 28(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in the issuing Member State before a judicial authority of that Member State during the proceedings on the execution of the EAW issued by the third Member State; or










—


that that person must be able to exercise his right to be heard in the Member State which previously surrendered him to the executing judicial authority during the proceedings on the giving of consent for subsequent surrender?














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 for subsequent surrender, as referred to in Article 28(3) 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).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10351 — BDT Capital Partners/Culligan Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 309/07
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: commercial bank, economic concentration, merger control, water treatment








C_2021309EN.01000701.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/7






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10351 — BDT Capital Partners/Culligan Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 309/07)
On 14 July 2021, 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 32021M10351. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-182/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Gala Perathoner) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the Gala Perathoner 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.01003401.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/34






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Gala Perathoner)
(Case T-182/20) (1)

(Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the Gala Perathoner apple variety - Technical examination - Testing location - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)
(2021/C 349/46)
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 17 January 2020 (Case A 004/2016) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the Gala Perathoner 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-429/21: Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021357EN.01002902.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/29






Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)
(Case T-429/21)
(2021/C 357/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. oHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cantina Sociale Tollo SCA (Tollo, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ALDIANO — European Union trade mark No 10 942 274

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2021 in Case R 1074/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-562/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Upper Echelon Products LLC v EUIPO (Everlasting Comfort) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Everlasting Comfort — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2021368EN.01002102.xml










13.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/21






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Upper Echelon Products LLC v EUIPO (Everlasting Comfort)
(Case T-562/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Everlasting Comfort - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 368/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Upper Echelon Products LLC (Austin, Texas, United States)) (represented by: M. Izquierdo Blanco, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 (Case R 952/2020-1) relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Everlasting Comfort

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Upper Echelon Products LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Case T-399/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe Holding (Ø) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Ø — Earlier international figurative mark φ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021349EN.01003502.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/35






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe Holding (Ø)
(Case T-399/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Ø - Earlier international figurative mark φ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 349/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cole Haan LLC (Greenland, New Hampshire, United States) (represented by: G. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Samsøe & Samsøe Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: C. Jardorf, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2020 (Case R 1375/2019-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Samsøe & Samsøe Holding and Cole Haan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cole Haan LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Samsøe & Samsøe Holding A/S to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10309 — Castik/Abry/Xexec) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 290/02
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, remuneration of work, technology, worker participation








C_2021290EN.01000201.xml










20.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 290/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10309 — Castik/Abry/Xexec)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 290/02)
On 14 July 2021, 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 32021M10309. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-172/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of law — Error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General of an Institution, allowances and expenses, assistant, claim, debt, principle of proportionality, proof, servant (EU)








C_2021357EN.01002402.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/24






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament
(Case T-172/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of law - Error of assessment - Proportionality)
(2021/C 357/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J.-L. Teheux and J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 60 499,38 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and of the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 60 499,38 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid for April 2010, for the days not corresponding to the missions accepted by the Secretary General of the Parliament, and the period from 29 to 31 March 2011;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Mr Rochefort and the Parliament each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case T-670/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Procedure of appointment to a director’s post — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of the applicant’s application and appointment of another applicant — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality in respect of the measures setting the internal rules of procedure — Irregularity of the recruitment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Inaccuracy of the information sent to the Appointing Authority — Transparency — Equal treatment — Liability — Material and non-material damage)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appointment of members, competition (EU), damages, equal treatment, indemnification, job vacancy, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021357EN.01002001.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/20






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament
(Case T-670/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Procedure of appointment to a director’s post - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of the applicant’s application and appointment of another applicant - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality in respect of the measures setting the internal rules of procedure - Irregularity of the recruitment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Inaccuracy of the information sent to the Appointing Authority - Transparency - Equal treatment - Liability - Material and non-material damage)
(2021/C 357/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Terwinghe and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 for, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 10 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application and appointing another applicant to the post of director for media in the Directorate-General for Communication, and, secondly, for compensation for the damage the applicant allegedly suffered owing to that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application and appointing another applicant to the post of director for media in the Directorate-General for Communication;










2.


Orders Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 40 000 to the applicant in compensation for material damage;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case T-119/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — IN v EISMEA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Appraisal — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Manifest error of assessment — Reasonable time — Liability — Non-material damage)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, legality, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff assessment, temporary employment, termination of employment








C_2021357EN.01002301.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/23






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — IN v EISMEA
(Case T-119/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Appraisal - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Manifest error of assessment - Reasonable time - Liability - Non-material damage)
(2021/C 357/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Innovation Council and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Executive Agency (represented by: A. Galea, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the decision of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) of 15 April 2019 not to renew the applicant’s contract and of the latter’s appraisal for the year 2018 as finalised on 3 June 2019 and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders the European Innovation Council and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Executive Agency (EISMEA) to pay to IN the amount of EUR 3 000;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.