do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-69/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Rotondaro v EUIPO — Pollini (COLLINI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark COLLINI — Earlier EU and national word marks POLLINI and STUDIO POLLINI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022073EN.01004001.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/40






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Rotondaro v EUIPO — Pollini (COLLINI)
(Case T-69/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark COLLINI - Earlier EU and national word marks POLLINI and STUDIO POLLINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 73/48)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Carmine Rotondaro (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pollini SpA (Gatteo, Italy) (represented by: F. Sanna, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2020 (Case R 2518/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pollini and Mr Rotondaro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Carmine Rotondaro to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Case T-225/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment — Retroactive effect — Legal certainty — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, posted worker, principle of legal certainty, remuneration of work, retroactivity of a law, wage determination








C_2022084EN.01003701.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/37






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS
(Case T-225/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment - Retroactive effect - Legal certainty - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
(2022/C 84/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: FJ and seven other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of June 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 August 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FJ and the other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-224/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FT and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Commission staff posted to a third country — Interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment — Retroactive effect — Legal certainty — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, posted worker, principle of legal certainty, remuneration of work, retroactivity of a law, wage determination








C_2022084EN.01003601.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/36






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FT and Others v Commission
(Case T-224/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Commission staff posted to a third country - Interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment - Retroactive effect - Legal certainty - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
(2022/C 84/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: FT and 22 other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of June 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 August 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FT and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case C-782/21 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Aeris Invest Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-827/17 Aeris Invest v ECB
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, access to EU information, aid to undertakings, bank, bank resolution, capital increase, company in difficulties, confidentiality, professional secret, right to justice








C_2022128EN.01000702.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/7






Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Aeris Invest Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-827/17 Aeris Invest v ECB
(Case C-782/21 P)
(2022/C 128/10)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission and Banco Santander, S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the General Court of 6 October 2021, Aeris Invest v ECB, T-827/17, EU:T:2021:660;










—


uphold the form of order sought by Aeris Invest at first instance and, in particular, declare null and void the decisions of the European Central Bank of 7 November 2017, LS/MD/17/405, LS/MD/17/419 and LS/MD/17/406, which refused access to a number of documents concerning the failure and resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A., the deposit balance and the ELA facility granted to Banco Popular Español, S.A.; and










—


order the European Central Bank to pay the costs in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal against the judgment under appeal.






—


By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the basis that: (i) it is not possible to request access to the documents sought in Case T-628/17; and (ii) the judgment under appeal prevents that party from exercising its right to an effective remedy and increases the inequality of arms between the parties. In any event, that restriction of Article 47 of the Charter is not justifiable under Article 52(1) of the Charter.










—


By the second ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal infringes the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (‘Decision 2004/258’), (1) read together with Article 47 of the Charter. In particular, it infringes Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Decision 2004/258 by interpreting the purpose of Decision 2004/258 in a manner contrary to fundamental rights.






(1)  OJ L 80, of 18 March 2004, p. 42.
Case T-705/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — OI v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition — Obligation to state reasons — Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings — No communication of the intermediate marks or the weighting of the elements of a test specified in the competition notice)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European neighbourhood policy, administrator, competition (EU), development policy, recruitment








C_2022073EN.01003902.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/39






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — OI v Commission
(Case T-705/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) - Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings - No communication of the intermediate marks or the weighting of the elements of a test specified in the competition notice)
(2022/C 73/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OI (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska and T. Lilamand, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the selection board for the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — Administrators of 25 March 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of that selection board of 16 December 2019 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the selection board for the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD6) — Administrators of 25 March 2020 not to include OI on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 6 in the field of development cooperation and neighbourhood policy;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10484 – PAI Partners/New Tiger) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 505/05
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage








C_2021505EN.01000701.xml










15.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 505/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10484 – PAI Partners/New Tiger)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 505/05)

1.   
On 3 December 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


PAI Partners S.à.r.l. (‘PAI Partners’, France), part of the PAI Group,










—


New Tiger LLC (‘New Tiger’, US), controlled by PepsiCo, Inc.




PAI Partners acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of New Tiger.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for PAI Partners: the management of a number of funds investing in the business services, distribution, food & consumer, general industrials, and healthcare sectors,










—


for New Tiger: the development, production, commercialization, marketing, distribution and sale of certain juice and juice-based beverages, in Europe in particular under the brands ‘Tropicana’, ‘Naked’ and ‘Punica’.






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.



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.10484 — PAI Partners/New Tiger
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’).
Case T-684/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a shoe — Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2022109EN.01002301.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/23






Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe)
(Case T-684/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a shoe - Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Grounds for invalidity - Lack of novelty - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 109/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schabenberger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1649/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Case T-757/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HB v EIB (Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Complaint alleging psychological harassment — Administrative enquiry — Decision dismissing the complaint — Decision rejecting the request for conciliation — Right to be heard — Liability)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: alternative dispute resolution, damages, disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, psychological harassment, rights of the defence








C_2022198EN.01003101.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/31






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HB v EIB
(Case T-757/19) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Complaint alleging psychological harassment - Administrative enquiry - Decision dismissing the complaint - Decision rejecting the request for conciliation - Right to be heard - Liability)
(2022/C 198/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, 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 seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of the EIB of 20 June and 10 October 2019 rejecting, respectively, a complaint of harassment and intimidation, and a request for conciliation, and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 20 June 2019 of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB);










2.


Orders the EIB to pay HB the sum of EUR 1 000 in respect of the loss of opportunity to settle the dispute amicably;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HB.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Case T-693/16 P RENV-RX: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HG v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Posting to a third country — Family lodging provided by the administration — Non-compliance with the obligation to reside there with the family — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step — Making good of any damage suffered by the European Union — Article 22 of the Staff Regulations — Dismissal of the action on the merits — Setting aside on appeal — Judgment on appeal re-examined by the Court of Justice and set aside — Referral back to the General Court)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, damages, disciplinary proceedings, family, housing, pay scale, posted worker








C_2022073EN.01003301.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/33






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HG v Commission
(Case T-693/16 P RENV-RX) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Posting to a third country - Family lodging provided by the administration - Non-compliance with the obligation to reside there with the family - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step - Making good of any damage suffered by the European Union - Article 22 of the Staff Regulations - Dismissal of the action on the merits - Setting aside on appeal - Judgment on appeal re-examined by the Court of Justice and set aside - Referral back to the General Court)
(2022/C 73/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr acting as Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F-149/15, EU:F:2016:155), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F-149/15);










2.


Fixes the amount of compensation owed by HG to the European Union at the sum of EUR 80 000 on the date of delivery of this judgment;










3.


Dismisses the action in Case F-149/15 as to the remainder;










4.


Orders HG and the European Commission to bear their own costs in Cases F-149/15, T-693/16 P, T-440/18 RENV and T-693/16 P-RENV-RX.






(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Case T-569/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Obligation of Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality — Request for an internal review — Refusal of the request as inadmissible)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, North Brabant, UN convention, access to information, admissibility, air quality, environmental monitoring, road transport, rural region, urban area








C_2022073EN.01003702.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/37






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v Commission
(Case T-569/20) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Obligation of Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality - Request for an internal review - Refusal of the request as inadmissible)
(2022/C 73/44)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt (Helvoirt, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Malfait and A. Croes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, G. Gattinara and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. de Ree, J. Langer and J. Hoogveld, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: W. Kuzmienko and C. Ionescu Dima, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and A. Maceroni, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 6 July 2020 rejecting as inadmissible a request for internal review of the decision to close the complaint procedure CHAP (2019) 2512.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.
Case T-779/21: Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Financiere Batteur v EUIPO — Leno Beauty (by L.e.n.o beauty)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, essential oil, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022073EN.01005301.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/53






Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Financiere Batteur v EUIPO — Leno Beauty (by L.e.n.o beauty)
(Case T-779/21)
(2022/C 73/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Financiere Batteur (Hérouville-Saint-Clair, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and F. Donaud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leno Beauty Sas (Ventimiglia, Italy)

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 figurative mark by L.e.n.o beauty — Application for registration No 18 083 647

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2021 in Case R 514/2021-2

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.