do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-802/21: Action brought on 23 December 2021 — just-organic.com v EUIPO (JUST ORGANIC)
Date: 2021-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, cosmetic product, electronic commerce, electronic publishing, foodstuff, non-alcoholic beverage, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022073EN.01006501.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/65






Action brought on 23 December 2021 — just-organic.com v EUIPO (JUST ORGANIC)
(Case T-802/21)
(2022/C 73/81)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: just-organic.com GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘JUST ORGANIC’ — Application for registration No 18 317 774

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 1010/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in so far as the EU trade mark application No 18 317 774 was rejected;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-830/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2021 — Syngenta Agro GmbH v Agro Trade Handelsgesellschaft mbH
Date: 2021-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: import (EU), labelling, market approval, plant health product, product designation








C_2022128EN.01001001.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2021 — Syngenta Agro GmbH v Agro Trade Handelsgesellschaft mbH
(Case C-830/21)
(2022/C 128/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Syngenta Agro GmbH

Defendant: Agro Trade Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, (1) read in combination with paragraph 1(b) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the name and address of the holder of the authorisation in the Member State of origin from which the plant protection product was imported must be stated on the packaging when it is distributed in another Member State?










2.


Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, read in combination with paragraph 1(f) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the batch number initially allocated by the manufacturer must be indicated on the packaging, or is it compatible with that provision for the parallel importer to remove the original batch number and to affix its own identification number to the packaging, provided it keeps records showing the correlation between the batch numbers used by it and the batch numbers used by the holder of the authorisation of the plant protection product imported in parallel?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2011 of 8 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards labelling requirements for plant protection products (OJ 2011 L 155, p. 176).
Case T-798/21: Action brought on 23 December 2021 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXFORTE)
Date: 2021-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, dietary product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2022073EN.01006301.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/63






Action brought on 23 December 2021 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXFORTE)
(Case T-798/21)
(2022/C 73/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Wachinger and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HELIXFORTE — Application for registration No 17 234 899

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings/

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2021 in Case R 1645/2019-1

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.
Case C-825/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 23 December 2021 — UP v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège
Date: 2021-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, illegal migration, removal, residence permit, return migration, right of asylum, therapeutics








C_2022158EN.01000301.xml










11.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 23 December 2021 — UP v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège
(Case C-825/21)
(2022/C 158/04)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UP

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

Question referred

Do Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (1) preclude a rule of national law under which the consequence of granting authorisation conferring a right to stay in the context of the examination of an application for leave to remain for the purpose of medical treatment, considered to be admissible in the light of the criteria set out above, is that the third-country national is entitled to stay, even temporarily and irregularly, during the examination of that application and that the return decision previously adopted in an asylum procedure, with which the grant of such authorisation is incompatible, is impliedly withdrawn?


(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Case T-797/21: Action brought on 23 December 2021 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXORIGINAL)
Date: 2021-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, dietary product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2022073EN.01006201.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/62






Action brought on 23 December 2021 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXORIGINAL)
(Case T-797/21)
(2022/C 73/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Wachinger and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HELIXORIGINAL — Application for registration No 17 234 824

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2021 in Case R 1644/2019-1

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.
Case T-805/21: Action brought on 23 December 2021 — NS v Parliament
Date: 2021-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, abuse of power, consultancy, damages, indemnification, reassignment, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022073EN.01006502.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/65






Action brought on 23 December 2021 — NS v Parliament
(Case T-805/21)
(2022/C 73/82)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: NS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the decision of 21 January 2021 reassigning the applicant to the post of Adviser in the Directorate-General for the Presidency and, to the extent necessary, the decision of 8 March 2021 to recover the overpayment;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 September 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 7 April 2021;










—


make good the applicant’s material and non-material damage;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular breach of the right to be heard and breach of the obligation to give reasons.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest lack of interest of the service and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power and abuse of process.