do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-159/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Hamers v Cedefop (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Investigation conducted by OLAF — Transmission to national judicial authorities of information relating to facts liable to lead to criminal proceedings — National criminal proceedings — Acquittal — Cedefop’s conduct in relation to the national criminal proceedings — Rejection of the claim for compensation — Action for annulment and damages — Conflict of interests — Presumption of innocence — Powers of Cedefop’s Board of Appeal)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, claim, conflict of interest, criminal proceedings, indemnification, rights of the defence, servant (EU), temporary employment








C_2022084EN.01003502.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/35






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Hamers v Cedefop
(Case T-159/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Investigation conducted by OLAF - Transmission to national judicial authorities of information relating to facts liable to lead to criminal proceedings - National criminal proceedings - Acquittal - Cedefop’s conduct in relation to the national criminal proceedings - Rejection of the claim for compensation - Action for annulment and damages - Conflict of interests - Presumption of innocence - Powers of Cedefop’s Board of Appeal)
(2022/C 84/49)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Helene Hamers (Angelochori, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, A. Politis, M. Rodopoulos and A. Skoulikis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (represented by: J. Siebel and L. Zacheilas, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur and C. Meidanis, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Cedefop’s implied decision of 19 January 2020 rejecting the complaint concerning a claim for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant and, second, compensation for that damage.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Helene Hamers to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Case T-6/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Dr. Spiller v EUIPO — Rausch (Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller — Earlier EU word mark RAUSCH — 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: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022095EN.01002801.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/28






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Dr. Spiller v EUIPO — Rausch (Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller)
(Case T-6/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller - Earlier EU word mark RAUSCH - 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 95/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dr. Spiller GmbH (Siegsdorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Stock and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl, J. Schäfer, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rausch AG Kreuzlingen (Kreuzlingen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Stangl and S. Pilgram, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 (Case R 2206/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rausch Kreuzlingen and Dr. Spiller.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dr. Spiller GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case C-814/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, European Parliament, European election, infringement of EU law, local election, political affiliation, political parties, residence, right to stand for election, right to vote








C_2022084EN.01003101.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/31






Action brought on 21 December 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-814/21)
(2022/C 84/41)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by denying citizens of the European Union who do not have Polish nationality but who reside in the Republic of Poland the right to become members of a political party, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he or she is not a national is to have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he or she resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.
The Commission takes the view that denying citizens of the Union who do not have Polish nationality but who reside in the Republic of Poland the right to become members of a political party prevents them from exercising their political rights as conferred on them by Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union under the same conditions as Polish nationals.
Case T-263/15 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission (State aid — Airport infrastructure — Public funding by the municipalities of Gdynia and Kosakowo for setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Market economy operator principle — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Recovery — Withdrawal of a decision — Failure to re-open the formal investigation procedure — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Poland, Pomerania, State aid, airport, control of State aid, local authority finances, reimbursement of aid, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2022095EN.01002102.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/21






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission
(Case T-263/15 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Airport infrastructure - Public funding by the municipalities of Gdynia and Kosakowo for setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Market economy operator principle - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition - Recovery - Withdrawal of a decision - Failure to re-open the formal investigation procedure - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 95/27)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicants: Gmina Miasto Gdynia (Poland), Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. z o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: T. Koncewicz, M. Le Berre, K. Gruszecka-Spychała and P. Rosiak, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, D. Recchia and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Articles 2 to 5 Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1586 of 26 February 2015 on measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 165).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. z o.o. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission before the Court of Justice in Case C-56/18 P and before the General Court in Cases T-263/15 and T-263 RENV;










3.


Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
Case C-934/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Algebris (UK) Ltd, Anchorage Capital Group LLC v Single Resolution Board (SRB) (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA — Sale of business tool — Write-down and conversion of capital instruments — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Article 20 — Concept of ‘definitive valuation’ — Consequences — Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation — Remedies — Action for annulment)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, ownership, sale








C_2022084EN.01000701.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/7






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Algebris (UK) Ltd, Anchorage Capital Group LLC v Single Resolution Board (SRB)
(Case C-934/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA - Sale of business tool - Write-down and conversion of capital instruments - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 20 - Concept of ‘definitive valuation’ - Consequences - Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation - Remedies - Action for annulment)
(2022/C 84/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Algebris (UK) Ltd, Anchorage Capital Group LLC (represented by: T. Soames, avocat, R. East, Solicitor, N. Chesaites, advocaat, and D. Mackersie, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. King, L. Pogarcic Mataija and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, H.-G. Kamann and L. Hesse, Rechstanwälte, and F. Louis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Joined Cases T-721/18 and T-81/19: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Grant agreements concluded in the context of various EU programmes — Breach of contractual terms by the beneficiary company — Eligible costs — OLAF investigation — Liquidation of the company — Recovery from the partners in the company — Enforcement — Allegations made by the representatives of the Commission before the national courts — Identification of the defendant — Failure to have regard to procedural requirements — Partial inadmissibility — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, European Anti-fraud Office, claim, damages, enforcement of ruling, expenditure, financial aid, liquidation








C_2022095EN.01002401.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/24






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki v Commission
(Joined Cases T-721/18 and T-81/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Grant agreements concluded in the context of various EU programmes - Breach of contractual terms by the beneficiary company - Eligible costs - OLAF investigation - Liquidation of the company - Recovery from the partners in the company - Enforcement - Allegations made by the representatives of the Commission before the national courts - Identification of the defendant - Failure to have regard to procedural requirements - Partial inadmissibility - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
(2022/C 95/31)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicants: Zoï Apostolopoulou (Athens, Greece), Anastasia Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki (Athens) (represented by: D. Gkouskos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and T. Adamopoulos, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATIONS pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking, in essence, compensation for the damage which the applicants allegedly suffered as a result of the allegations made by the representatives of the Commission in the procedure for objecting to enforcement against them of the judgments of 16 July 2014, Isotis v Commission (T-59/11, EU:T:2014:679), and of 4 February 2016, Isotis v Commission (T-562/13, not published, EU:T:2016:63), before the Protodikeio Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens, Greece) and the Efeteio Athinon (Court of Appeal, Athens, Greece).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Zoï Apostolopoulou and Ms Anastasia Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Case C-251/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Gtflix Tv v DR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person — Place where the harmful event occurred — Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, defamation, indemnification, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2022084EN.01001301.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/13






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Gtflix Tv v DR
(Case C-251/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person - Place where the harmful event occurred - Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible)
(2022/C 84/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gtflix Tv

Defendant: DR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging comments concerning him or her on the internet, seeks not only the rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online concerning him or her but also compensation for the damage resulting from that placement may claim, before the courts of each Member State in which those comments are or were accessible, compensation for the damage suffered in the Member State of the court seised, even though those courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the application for rectification and removal.


(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Case T-870/19: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Worldwide Spirits Supply v EUIPO — Melfinco (CLEOPATRA QUEEN) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CLEOPATRA QUEEN — Earlier national word mark CLEOPATRA MELFINCO — Articles 15 and 57 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Declaration of invalidity)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, trade-mark law








C_2022095EN.01002702.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/27






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Worldwide Spirits Supply v EUIPO — Melfinco (CLEOPATRA QUEEN)
(Case T-870/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark CLEOPATRA QUEEN - Earlier national word mark CLEOPATRA MELFINCO - Articles 15 and 57 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Declaration of invalidity)
(2022/C 95/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Worldwide Spirits Supply, Inc. (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Demetriou, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Melfinco S.A. (Schaan, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Gioti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2019 (Case R 1820/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Melfinco and Worldwide Spirits Supply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Worldwide Spirits Supply, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Melfinco S.A. to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Case C-816/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Luis Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2021 in Case T-595/21 Novais v Portugal
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: higher court, judge, jurisdiction








C_2022222EN.01000903.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/9






Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Luis Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2021 in Case T-595/21 Novais v Portugal
(Case C-816/21 P)
(2022/C 222/16)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Luis Miguel Novais (represented by: Á. Oliveira and C. Almeida Lopes, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic
By order of 11 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered Luis Miguel Novais to bear his own costs.
Case T-788/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, electronic component, flat product, import (EU), originating product








C_2022084EN.01004301.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/43






Action brought on 21 December 2021 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission
(Case T-788/21)
(2022/C 84/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TDK Foil Italy SpA (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, A. Scalini and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 (1) of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as it includes in the scope of the anti-dumping duty raw aluminium foil used to produce high-voltage anode and tab foils for aluminium electrolytic capacitors;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China insofar it illegally includes High Purity Aluminium Foil in the scope of the anti-dumping duty, and;










—


in any event, order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that, by including High Purity Aluminium Foil within the scope of the measures, the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment of the evidence provided during the investigation and infringed the principle of proportionality. In particular, the applicant submits that there is robust evidence of the absence of Union production of High Purity Aluminium Foil.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates Article 1(1) of the Basic Regulation insofar as it applied anti-dumping duties against imports of a product which could not have caused injury to the Union industry, as well as in absence of the Union interest.






(1)  OJ 2021, L 359, p. 6