do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-755/21 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2021: Marián Kočner against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-528/20 Kočner v Europol
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Mafia, criminal proceedings, evidence, expert's report ordered by a court, interpretation of the law, liability, national law








C_2022073EN.01001801.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/18






Appeal brought on 8 December 2021: Marián Kočner against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-528/20 Kočner v Europol
(Case C-755/21 P)
(2022/C 73/23)
Language of the case: Slovak

Parties


Appellant: Marián Kočner (represented by: M. Mandzák, M. Para, advokáti)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in full;










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


declare that the General Court is to decide on the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two harmful events. The appeal is in total made up of six grounds. The General Court is alleged to have erred in the legal assessment of the case and to have incorrectly applied the substantive law, especially as regards the joint and several liability for damage of the defendant and the Member State, to have incorrectly interpreted the national law, to have incorrectly established that there was a lack of a causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the harmful event, to have stated insufficient reasons for the judgment under appeal and to have distorted the evidence.
Case C-753/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 8 December 2021 — Instrubel NV v Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iraq, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2022095EN.01001801.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 8 December 2021 — Instrubel NV v Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services
(Case C-753/21)
(2022/C 95/22)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Instrubel NV

Defendants: Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 4(2), (3) and (4) and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, (1) as amended, to be interpreted as meaning that:






—


the frozen funds and economic resources remain, pending the decision to transfer them to the successor arrangements to the Development Fund for Iraq, the property of the natural and legal persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of former President Saddam Hussein covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources?










—


or those frozen funds are the property of the successor arrangements to the Development Fund for Iraq upon the entry into force of the regulation identifying, in Annexes III and IV, the natural and legal persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of former President Saddam Hussein covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources?














2.


Should the answer to Question 1 be that the funds and economic resources are the property of the successor arrangements to the Development Fund for Iraq, are Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, as amended, to be interpreted as meaning that attachment of the frozen assets is subject to the prior authorisation of the competent national authority? Or are those provisions to be interpreted as requiring the authorisation of that national authority only at the moment the frozen funds are released?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (OJ 2003 L 169, p. 6).
Case T-127/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Dyson and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Energy — Directive 2010/30/EU — Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 — Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners — Energy efficiency — Measurement method — Annulment by the General Court — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU energy label, damages, energy consumption, household electrical appliance, labelling








C_2022073EN.01003302.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/33






Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Dyson and Others v Commission
(Case T-127/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Energy - Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners - Energy efficiency - Measurement method - Annulment by the General Court - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
(2022/C 73/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: E. Batchelor, T. Selwyn Sharpe and M. Healy, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, Y. Marinova and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the unlawfulness of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dyson Ltd and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Case T-71/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — QB v Commission (Civil service — Temporary staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance — Main occupation — Work done for another State)
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, judge, servant (EU)








C_2022051EN.01003002.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/30






Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — QB v Commission
(Case T-71/21) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Main occupation - Work done for another State)
(2022/C 51/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: QB (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of 6 April 2020 refusing to grant the expatriation allowance to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders QB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.
Case C-754/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 8 December 2021 — Montana Management Inc. v Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iraq, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2022095EN.01001901.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 8 December 2021 — Montana Management Inc. v Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services
(Case C-754/21)
(2022/C 95/23)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Montana Management Inc.

Defendants: Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 4(2), (3) and (4) and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, (1) as amended, to be interpreted as meaning that:






—


the frozen funds and economic resources remain, pending the decision to transfer them to the successor arrangements to the Development Fund for Iraq, the property of the natural and legal persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of former President Saddam Hussein covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources?










—


or those frozen funds are the property of the successor arrangements to the Development Fund for Iraq upon the entry into force of the regulation identifying, in Annexes III and IV, the natural and legal persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of former President Saddam Hussein covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources?














2.


Should the answer to Question 1 be that the funds and economic resources are the property of the successor arrangements to the Development Fund for Iraq, are Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, as amended, to be interpreted as meaning that attachment of the frozen assets is subject to the prior authorisation of the competent national authority? Or are those provisions to be interpreted as requiring the authorisation of that national authority only at the moment the frozen funds are released?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (OJ 2003 L 169, p. 6).
Case T-500/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — BZ v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Request for recognition of an occupational disease — Non-contractual liability — Material damage — Non-material damage)
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, occupational disease, servant (EU)








C_2022051EN.01002501.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/25






Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — BZ v ECB
(Case T-500/16) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Request for recognition of an occupational disease - Non-contractual liability - Material damage - Non-material damage)
(2022/C 51/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and F. Feyerbacher, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for, first, annulment of the ECB’s decisions of 29 August 2011, 20 December 2011 and 25 April 2012 and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained as a result of the ECB’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders BZ to pay the costs.






(1)  [confidential] (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number [confidential] and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10519 – BLACKSTONE / INTERPLEX) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 492/04
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, technology








C_2021492EN.01000601.xml










8.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 492/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10519 – BLACKSTONE / INTERPLEX)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 492/04)

1.   
On 1 December 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Blackstone Inc. (‘Blackstone’, United States);










—


Interplex Holdings Pte. Ltd (‘Interplex’, Singapore).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Blackstone: global asset management across a wide range of assets classes including private equity, real estate, public debt and equity, growth equity, opportunistic, non-investment grade credit, real assets and secondary funds;










—


for Interplex: design and manufacture of customised interconnect, high-precision and mechanical solutions focused on decarbonisation of transportation, future mobility, increased longevity and digitalisation, serving clients globally.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10519 – BLACKSTONE / INTERPLEX
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-723/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Rooken and Others v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Members of Parliament — Conditions of access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work in connection with the health crisis — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, coronavirus disease, data protection, disease prevention, health certificate, health control, personal data, protection of privacy








C_2022095EN.01003801.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/38






Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Rooken and Others v Parliament
(Case T-723/21 R)
(Application for interim measures - Members of Parliament - Conditions of access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work in connection with the health crisis - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
(2022/C 95/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Robert Jan Rooken (Muiderberg, Netherlands) an 8 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and A.-M. Dumbrăvan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on the exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The order of 15 November 2021, Rooken and Others v Parliament (T-723/21 R), is set aside.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-722/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — D’Amato and Others v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Members of Parliament — Conditions of access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work in connection with the health crisis — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, coronavirus disease, data protection, disease prevention, health certificate, health control, personal data, protection of privacy








C_2022095EN.01003702.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/37






Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — D’Amato and Others v Parliament
(Case T-722/21 R)
(Application for interim measures - Members of Parliament - Conditions of access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work in connection with the health crisis - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
(2022/C 95/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Rosa D’Amato (Taranto, Italy), Claude Gruffat (Mulsans, France), Damien Carême (Argenteuil, France), Benoît Biteau (Sablonceaux, France) (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and A.-M. Dumbrăvan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on the exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The order of 15 November 2021, D’Amato and Others v Parliament (T-722/21 R), is set aside.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-595/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI BURGER — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No detriment to repute — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal product, catering industry, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, processed foodstuff, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022073EN.01003502.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/35






Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)
(Case T-595/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI BURGER - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No detriment to repute - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 73/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden) (represented by: P. Nihlmark and L. Zacharoff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2019 (Case R 1356/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Case T-294/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Talleres de Escoriaza v EUIPO — Salto Systems (KAAS KEYS AS A SERVICE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark KAAS KEYS AS A SERVICE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Signs or indications which have become customary — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2022073EN.01003701.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/37






Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Talleres de Escoriaza v EUIPO — Salto Systems (KAAS KEYS AS A SERVICE)
(Case T-294/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark KAAS KEYS AS A SERVICE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Signs or indications which have become customary - Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 73/43)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Talleres de Escoriaza, SA (Irun, Spain) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Salto Systems, SL (Oiartzun, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2020 (Case R 1363/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Talleres de Escoriaza and Salto Systems.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Talleres de Escoriaza, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.