do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-160/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Word mark APIRETAL — Declaration of revocation — No genuine use — No proper reasons for non-use — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022119EN.01003901.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/39






Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)
(Case T-160/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Word mark APIRETAL - Declaration of revocation - No genuine use - No proper reasons for non-use - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 119/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ingrid Malpricht (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2021 (Case R 1004/2020 4), relating to revocation proceedings between Ms Malpricht and Laboratorios Ern.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.
Case C-29/22 P: Appeal brought on 12 January 2022 by KS and KD against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-771/20, KS and KD v Council and Others
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, damages, human rights, jurisdiction








C_2022109EN.01001802.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/18






Appeal brought on 12 January 2022 by KS and KD against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-771/20, KS and KD v Council and Others
(Case C-29/22 P)
(2022/C 109/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: KS and KD (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor, F. Randolph QC and P. Koutrakos, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


allow the appeal, set aside the order under appeal and grant the relief sought before the General Court;










—


alternatively, allow the appeal and remit the case to the General Court for final determination; and










—


order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal, proceedings before the General Court and proceedings before the Human Rights Review Panel of EULEX.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the ground that the General Court erred in law by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action that the appellants had brought seeking reparation for the damage they have suffered as a result of the violation of their fundamental human rights by the respondents. The ground of appeal is divided in four parts.
First, the General Court erred in law by interpreting broadly the CFSP (European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy) exclusion laid down in the last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU and the first paragraph of Article 275 TFEU.
Second, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the judgment of 6 October 2020, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (C-134/19 P, EU:C:2020:793).
Third, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the judgment of 25 March 2021, Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council (C-565/19 P, not published, EU:C:2021:252).
Fourth, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the claim and not providing sufficient reasons for its decision.
Case T-259/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — Neolith Distribution v EUIPO (Representation of an ornamental pattern) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU pattern mark — Representation of an ornamental pattern — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, ceramics, floor coverings, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022119EN.01003902.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/39






Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — Neolith Distribution v EUIPO (Representation of an ornamental pattern)
(Case T-259/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU pattern mark - Representation of an ornamental pattern - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 119/53)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Neolith Distribution, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2021 (Case R 2155/2020-4), regarding an application for registration of a pattern sign representing an ornamental pattern as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Neolith Distribution, SL, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10563 – ENGIE SPAIN / PREDICA / EOLIA) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 14 I/05
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, gas industry, insurance, merger control, renewable energy, solar energy, wind energy








CI2022014EN.01000501.xml










12.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 14/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10563 – ENGIE SPAIN / PREDICA / EOLIA)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 14 I/05)

1.   
On 3 January 2022, 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:






—


ENGIE España Renovables, S.L. (‘ENGIE Spain’, Spain), ultimately controlled by ENGIE, S.A. (‘ENGIE’, France),










—


Predica Prévoyance Dialogue du Crédit Agricole S.A. (‘Predica’, France), belonging to the Groupe Crédit Agricole (France),










—


Eolia Renovables de Inversiones, Sociedad de Capital Riesgo, S.A. (‘Eolia’, Spain).




ENGIE Spain and Predica acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Eolia.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


ENGIE Spain is a newly incorporated company belonging to ENGIE. ENGIE is active in the fields of natural gas, electricity and energy services,










—


Predica is a life and health insurance company,










—


Eolia is active in the generation of renewable energy and the development, construction and operation of wind farms and solar photovoltaic facilities in Spain.






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.10563 – ENGIE SPAIN / PREDICA / EOLIA
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10422 – WMG / BLACKROCK GROUP / INFLUENCE MEDIA / THE INITIAL FUND) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 31/03
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: audiovisual industry, copyright, culture industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, music








C_2022031EN.01000501.xml










21.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10422 – WMG / BLACKROCK GROUP / INFLUENCE MEDIA / THE INITIAL FUND)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 31/03)
On 12 January 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10422. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10554 – BLACKSTONE / FRANCISCO PARTNERS / RENAISSANCE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 31/02
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, primary education, secondary education, software








C_2022031EN.01000401.xml










21.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10554 – BLACKSTONE / FRANCISCO PARTNERS / RENAISSANCE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 31/02)
On 12 January 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10554. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-647/20: Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 –Verelst v Council (Law governing the institutions — Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office — Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 — Appointment of the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office — Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Belgium — Rules applicable to the appointment of the European Prosecutors)
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, European Public Prosecutor's Office, administrator, appointment of members, enhanced cooperation, public prosecutor's department, servant (EU)








C_2022119EN.01003701.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/37






Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 –Verelst v Council
(Case T-647/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 - Appointment of the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Belgium - Rules applicable to the appointment of the European Prosecutors)
(2022/C 119/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Michel Verelst (Éghezée, Belgium) (represented by: C. Molitor, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak, R. Meyer and K. Kouri, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, M. Van Regemorter and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1117 of 27 July 2020 appointing the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2020 L 244, p. 18) in so far as it appoints Mr Yves Van Den Berge as a European Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and rejects the candidacy of the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Jean-Michel Verelst to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Case T-630/20: Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — MW v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Political group — Dismissal — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Psychological harassment — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Liability)
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, damages, dismissal, harassment at work, political group (EP), psychological harassment, servant (EU), sexual harassment, temporary employment








C_2022119EN.01003602.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/36






Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — MW v Parliament
(Case T-630/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Political group - Dismissal - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Psychological harassment - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Liability)
(2022/C 119/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: MW (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor and N. Scafarto, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 11 December 2019 to terminate the contract of employment of the applicant as a member of the temporary staff under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders MW to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Case T-20/22: Action brought on 12 January 2022 — NW v Commission
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, claim, debt, interest, remuneration of work, right to justice, staff regulations (EU), tax relief








C_2022095EN.01004201.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/42






Action brought on 12 January 2022 — NW v Commission
(Case T-20/22)
(2022/C 95/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: NW (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decisions in so far as they include the recovery of the sums paid to the applicant;










—


order the Commission to repay to the applicant the sums already recovered;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decisions in so far as they include the recovery of the sum of EUR 3 986,72;










—


moreover, the applicant seeks the payment of interest on any sum which will be paid to him as from the moment each sum should have been paid to him until actual payment;










—


if the Court dismisses the present action — in the light of the multiple irregularities committed by the PMO over time, the fact that ‘a tax allowance is not easily detectable on a payslip’, the assurances given by the PMO to the applicant, the applicant’s good faith which the administration accepts and the fact that the applicant (having no reason to doubt the amount of his salary) made financial commitments proportionate to such a salary level during those years (such as taking out a mortgage for the purchase of a house for his family) — the applicant submits that, in the interest of fairness, the Court should order the Commission to bear at least its own costs and to pay those of the applicant pursuant to Article 135 of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decisions of the Commission of 6 and 9 April 2021 and of 4 May 2021 to recover the sums unduly paid to him in respect of the tax allowance for his children, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging erroneous interpretation and application of Article 85 of the Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The applicant submits in that regard that the conditions laid down in Article 85 to permit the recovery of sums paid but not due are not met.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations in that, in the present case, the three conditions to characterise legitimate expectations under the applicable legislation are met.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons.
Special report No 01/2022 EU support to the rule of law in the Western Balkans: despite efforts, fundamental problems persist 2022/C 14 I/02
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, Western Balkans, accession to the European Union, civil society, corruption, democracy, freedom of communication, human rights, independence of the judiciary, rule of law








CI2022014EN.01000201.xml










12.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 14/2






Special report No 01/2022
EU support to the rule of law in the Western Balkans: despite efforts, fundamental problems persist
(2022/C 14 I/02)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 01/2022 ‘EU support to the rule of law in the Western Balkans: despite efforts, fundamental problems persist’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 11 January 2022 2022/C 14/01
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022014EN.01000101.xml










12.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 January 2022
(2022/C 14/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1336 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,95 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4404 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83475 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3075 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0502 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0165 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,412 




HUF


Hungarian forint


357,45 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5438 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9450 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,6960 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5804 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4329 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8384 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6772 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5342 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,85 




ZAR


South African rand


17,7094 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2255 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5236 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 221,39 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7515 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,979 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,8663 




THB


Thai baht


37,862 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3890 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0888 




INR


Indian rupee


83,7481 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-366/20: Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — 1031023 B.C. v EUIPO — Bodegas San Valero (Representation of a circle drawn by a brush) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a circle drawn by a brush — Earlier national figurative mark ORIGIUM 1944 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-01-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2022119EN.01003401.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/34






Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — 1031023 B.C. v EUIPO — Bodegas San Valero (Representation of a circle drawn by a brush)
(Case T-366/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a circle drawn by a brush - Earlier national figurative mark ORIGIUM 1944 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 119/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: 1031023 B.C. Ltd (Richmond, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: M. González Gordon, 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: Bodegas San Valero, S. Coop. (Cariñena, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 2142/2019-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas San Valero and 1031023 B.C.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders 1031023 B.C. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bodegas San Valero, S. Coop.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.