do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-623/21: Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — Vaillant (Puma)
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air conditioning, heating, registered trade mark, solar collector, thermal equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021471EN.01005701.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/57






Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — Vaillant (Puma)
(Case T-623/21)
(2021/C 471/81)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vaillant GmbH (Remscheid, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Puma — Application for registration No 17 867 529

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2021 in Case R 1875/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and refuse the application for the contested mark;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-630/21: Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Çolakoğlu Metalurji and Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret v Commission
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Türkiye, alloy, anti-dumping duty, flat product, import (EU), iron, originating product, steel








C_2021471EN.01006001.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/60






Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Çolakoğlu Metalurji and Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret v Commission
(Case T-630/21)
(2021/C 471/85)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Çolakoğlu Metalurji AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey), Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul) (represented by: J. Cornelis and F. Graafsma, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1100 of 5 July 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey (OJ 2021 L 238, p. 32); and










—


order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) by making an adjustment for a (notional) commission to the export price and, more specifically,






—


A violation of Article 2(10)(i)) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 to the extent the adjustment made for commissions exceeds the actual commission paid to Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret AŞ;










—


A violation of Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 as Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret AŞ does not receive a mark-up; and










—


A manifest error of assessment in treating Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret AŞ as an agent working on a commission basis and consequent violation of Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by requiring payment of import duties for accepting a duty drawback adjustment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in refusing to carry out a quarterly dumping margin calculation and consequent violation of the chapeau of Article 2(10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by refusing to adjust for hedging gains and losses.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (JO 2016 L 176, p. 21).
Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela 2021/C 393/06
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2021393EN.01000601.xml










29.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/6






Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela
(2021/C 393/06)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Rafael Ramón BLANCO MARRERO (No 20), Mr. Hannover Esteban GUERRERO MIJARES (No 25), Ms Gladys del Valle REQUENA (No 27), Ms Tania Valentina DÍAZ GONZÁLEZ (No 28), Mr. Elvis Eduardo HIDROBO AMOROSO (No 29), Mr. Luis Eduardo PARRA RIVERO (No 34), Mr. Franklyn Leonardo DUARTE (No 35), Mr. José Gregorio NORIEGA FIGUEROA (No 36), Mr. Remigio CEBALLOS ICHASO (No 37), Mr. Luis Fernando DAMIANI BUSTILLOS (No 41), Ms Lourdes Benicia SUÁREZ ANDERSON (No 42), Mr. Calixto Antonio ORTEGA RÍOS (No 43), Mr. René Alberto DEGRAVES ALMARZA (No 44), Mr. Arcadio DELGADO ROSALES (No 45), Ms Carmen Auxiliadora ZULETA DE MERCHÁN (No 46), Ms Indira Maira ALFONZO IZAGUIRRE (No 47), Mr. Leonardo Enrique MORALES POLEO (No 48), Mr. Carlos Ramón Enrique CARVALLO GUEVARA (N 51), Mr. Carlos Enrique TERÁN HURTADO (No 53), Mr. Douglas Arnoldo RICO GONZÁLEZ (No 55) , persons appearing in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 (1) and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela.
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for maintaining their designation, by 6 October 2021, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
The persons concerned may submit at any time a request to the Council, together with any supporting documentation, that the decision to include and maintain them on the list should be reconsidered, to the address provided above. Such requests will be considered when they are received. In this respect, the attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council according to Article 13 of Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074.


(1)  OJ L 295 14.11.2017, p. 60.

(2)  OJ L 295 14.11.2017, p. 21.
Case C-608/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 September 2021 — XN v Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrest, criminal proceedings, detention before trial, offence, right to information, rights of the defence








C_2022198EN.01001501.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 September 2021 — XN v Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR
(Case C-608/21)
(2022/C 198/21)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XN

Defendant: Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 8(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 6(2) thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which is applied in a corrective manner on the basis of settled case-law in the EU Member State concerned and under which it is permissible that information concerning the grounds for detaining a suspect, including information concerning the criminal offence of which he or she is suspected, is not contained in the written detention order, but in other accompanying documents (originating before or after that order) which are not provided to him or her immediately and of which the person can subsequently be informed in the event that he or she challenges the legality of the detention before the courts?










2.


Is Article 6(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure the effective exercise of the rights of the defence, the information concerning the criminal offence of which an arrested person is suspected must contain details regarding the time, place and manner of the commission of the offence, that person’s specific involvement in it and the consequent criminal nature of the offence?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1.
Case T-342/18: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Nichicon Corporation v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for aluminium electrolytic capacitors and tantalum electrolytic capacitors — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price coordination throughout the EEA — Concerted practice — Exchanges of sensitive business information — Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission — Restriction of competition by object — Statement of objections — Point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Single and continuous infringement — Gravity of the infringement — Public distancing — Mitigating circumstances — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, aluminium, cartel, control of restrictive practices, electronic component, insider trading, mitigating circumstances, price agreement, sanction (EU), tantalum








C_2021471EN.01003402.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/34






Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Nichicon Corporation v Commission
(Case T-342/18) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for aluminium electrolytic capacitors and tantalum electrolytic capacitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price coordination throughout the EEA - Concerted practice - Exchanges of sensitive business information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Restriction of competition by object - Statement of objections - Point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Single and continuous infringement - Gravity of the infringement - Public distancing - Mitigating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(2021/C 471/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nichicon Corporation (Kyoto, Japan) (represented by: A. Ablasser-Neuhuber, F. Neumayr, G. Fussenegger and H. Kühnert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, T. Franchoo, C. Sjödin and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 1768 final of 21 March 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40136 — Capacitors), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nichicon Corporation to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Case T-628/21: Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Tequila Revolución v EUIPO — Horizons Group (London) (Revolution Vodka)
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01004901.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/49






Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Tequila Revolución v EUIPO — Horizons Group (London) (Revolution Vodka)
(Case T-628/21)
(2021/C 490/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Tequila Revolución (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Horizons Group (London) Ltd (Reading, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark Revolution Vodka — Application for registration No 17 948 886

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2021 in Case R 2266/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


find that the contested decision unfounded;










—


find that the contested decision must be annulled and that the use of the applicant’s trade mark is real and sufficient;










—


where appropriate, find that the opposition to the trade mark Revolution Vodka is well founded;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-384/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Parliament v Axa Assurances Luxembourg and Others (Arbitration clause — ‘Construction all-risk’ insurance contract — Extension and renovation of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg — Damage caused by rainwater — Claim for reimbursement of costs and for payment of the indemnity — Scope of the insurance — Exclusion clause — Ancillary procedural obligations — Procedure by default in part)
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: arbitration clause, building industry, damage, flood, insurance claim, insurance indemnity, insurance law








C_2021471EN.01004301.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/43






Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Parliament v Axa Assurances Luxembourg and Others
(Case T-384/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - ‘Construction all-risk’ insurance contract - Extension and renovation of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Damage caused by rainwater - Claim for reimbursement of costs and for payment of the indemnity - Scope of the insurance - Exclusion clause - Ancillary procedural obligations - Procedure by default in part)
(2021/C 471/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Paladini and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents, and by C. Point and P. Hédouin, lawyers)

Defendants: Axa Assurances Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Bâloise Assurances Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg), La Luxembourgeoise SA (Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Collarini and S. Denu, lawyers), Nationale-Nederlanden Schadeverzekering Maatschappij NV

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the defendants reimburse the costs related to the water damage caused to the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg following heavy rainfall on the site on 27 and 30 May 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Orders Nationale-Nederlanden Schadeverzekering Maatschappij NV to reimburse the sum of EUR 79 653,89 to the European Parliament together with statutory interest for late payment relating thereto as from 22 December 2017, the rate of which is the sum of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) to its main refinancing operations and eight percentage points;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Nationale-Nederlanden Schadeverzekering Maatschappij to bear the costs of the default procedure concerning it;










4.


Orders the Parliament, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Axa Assurances Luxembourg SA, Bâloise Assurances Luxembourg SA and La Luxembourgeoise SA.






(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case T-528/20: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Kočner v Europol (Non-contractual liability — Expert reports carried out by Europol for the purposes of national criminal proceedings — Alleged unauthorised disclosure of data — Regulation (EU) 2016/794 — Article 50(1) — Non-material harm — Causal link)
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Mafia, criminal proceedings, data protection, disclosure of information, expert's report ordered by a court, indemnification, judicial investigation, personal data








C_2021471EN.01004602.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/46






Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Kočner v Europol
(Case T-528/20) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Expert reports carried out by Europol for the purposes of national criminal proceedings - Alleged unauthorised disclosure of data - Regulation (EU) 2016/794 - Article 50(1) - Non-material harm - Causal link)
(2021/C 471/65)
Language of the case: Slovakian

Parties


Applicant: Marián Kočner (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Mandzák and M. Para, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: A. Nunzi, B. De Buck, T. Zwingler and A. van Oostenbrugge, acting as Agents, and by G. Ziegenhorn, M. Kottmann and S. Schulz-Große, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of Europol’s disclosure of personal data and Europol’s inclusion of his name on the ‘Mafia lists’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Marián Kočner to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol);










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Case T-592/20: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Univers Agro v EUIPO — Shandong Hengfeng Rubber & Plastic (AGATE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark AGATE — Absolute ground for refusal — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2021471EN.01004701.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/47






Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Univers Agro v EUIPO — Shandong Hengfeng Rubber & Plastic (AGATE)
(Case T-592/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark AGATE - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 471/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Univers Agro EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: C. Hernández-Martí Pérez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Shandong Hengfeng Rubber & Plastic Co. Ltd (Dongying, China) (represented by: J. Erdozain López, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2020 (Case R 725/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Shandong Hengfeng Rubber & Plastic and Univers Agro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Agro EOOD to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Special report No 20/2021 Sustainable water use in agriculture: CAP funds more likely to promote greater rather than more efficient water use 2021/C 393/09
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, aid to agriculture, climate change, common agricultural policy, rural development, sustainable agriculture, water management, water management in agriculture, water protection, water resources








C_2021393EN.01000901.xml










29.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/9






Special report No 20/2021
Sustainable water use in agriculture: CAP funds more likely to promote greater rather than more efficient water use
(2021/C 393/09)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 20/2021 ‘Sustainable water use in agriculture: CAP funds more likely to promote greater rather than more efficient water use’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu