do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-325/20: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Unger Marketing International v EUIPO — Orben Wasseraufbereitung (Water purifiers) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Design representing a water purifier — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Declaration of invalidity)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, water treatment








C_2022119EN.01003301.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/33






Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Unger Marketing International v EUIPO — Orben Wasseraufbereitung (Water purifiers)
(Case T-325/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Design representing a water purifier - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Declaration of invalidity)
(2022/C 119/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Unger Marketing International, LLC (Bridgeport, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: C. Schulte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, D. Hanf and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Orben Wasseraufbereitung GmbH & Co. KG

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2020 (Case R 740/2018-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Orben Wasseraufbereitung and Unger Marketing International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Unger Marketing International, LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Case T-717/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — ICA Traffic v Commission (Application for interim relief — Public procurement — Supply of disinfection robots — Application for interim measures — No urgency)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: decontamination, public procurement, robotics, robotisation, supplies contract








C_2022119EN.01004901.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/49






Order of the President of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — ICA Traffic v Commission
(Case T-717/21 R)
(Application for interim relief - Public procurement - Supply of disinfection robots - Application for interim measures - No urgency)
(2022/C 119/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ICA Traffic GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: S. Hertwig and C. Vogt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Mantl, B. Araujo Arce and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, that the Commission be ordered to not continue with the purchase, announced in its press release of 21 September 2021, of 100 additional disinfection robots on the ground that one of the framework contracts for the supply of a maximum of 200 disinfection robots has ceased to have effect and, second, the grant of any other interim measure necessary to maintain the status quo.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-52/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 26 January 2022 — BF v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil servant, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty, social security legislation








C_2022158EN.01000602.xml










11.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 26 January 2022 — BF v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau
(Case C-52/22)
(2022/C 158/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: BF

Respondent authority: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau

Question referred

Are Article 2(1) and 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) and the principles of legal certainty, maintenance of established rights and effectiveness of EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings — under which the first adjustment of the retirement pension of the group of civil servants who became entitled to a retirement pension (‘total pension’ under the Pensionsgesetz 1965 (‘the 1965 Law on pensions’)) as from 1 December 2021 at the latest is to be made with effect only from 1 January of the second calendar year following the commencement of entitlement to the retirement pension, whereas the first adjustment of the retirement pension of the group of civil servants who became or will become entitled to a retirement pension (‘total pension’ under the 1965 Law on pensions) as from 1 January 2022 is to be made with effect already from 1 January of the first calendar year following the commencement of entitlement to the retirement pension?


(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case C-53/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2022 — VZ v CA
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, judicial review, restriction on competition, tendering








C_2022148EN.01001501.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2022 — VZ v CA
(Case C-53/22)
(2022/C 148/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VZ

Defendant: CA

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 (1) preclude a competitor who is definitively excluded from a contractor selection procedure from being denied the possibility of a review of the refusal to annul the award, when it is intended to show that the successful tenderer, and all other shortlisted competitors, are guilty of grave professional misconduct, consisting of having entered into anticompetitive agreements which were determined by a court only after the competitor had been excluded, in order to have the opportunity to participate in a rerun of the procedure?










2.


Does Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 and the principles [of European Union law] on the safeguarding of competition preclude an administrative court from the scrutiny of a review, requested by a competitor definitively excluded from a contractor selection procedure, of the contracting authority’s refusal to review measures which it adopted itself, with regard to the admission of and award to competitors who have entered into anticompetitive agreements, determined by a court, in the same sector as the tender procedure?






(1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).
Case T-56/22: Action brought on 26 January 2022 — United Kingdom v Commission
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU direct payments, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2022158EN.01001101.xml










11.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/11






Action brought on 26 January 2022 — United Kingdom v Commission
(Case T-56/22)
(2022/C 158/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Baxter, Agent, and T. Buley, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s Implementing Decision (EU) No 2021/2019 (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union’s financing certain expenditure incurred by the applicant’s accredited paying agencies under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the stated reason of weakness in the definition of ‘active farmer — connected companies’; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 (2) is wrong. In the applicant’s view, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 is concerned only with direct payments to farmers (as defined in Article 4 of the aforementioned Regulation) who themselves operate the relevant infrastructure or services. The applicant maintains that the defendant held wrongly because:






—


i. The language and the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 does not have the effect of prohibiting payments to a farmer merely because some connected entity undertakes an activity on the negative list in this article.










—


ii. There is no purposive or teleological basis for the Commission’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, which does not accord with the purposes of this article.






(1)  OJ 2021, L 413, p. 3.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 608).
Case T-570/20: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Kedrion v EMA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Collection and processing of plasma — Plasma master file — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Incorrect determination of the subject matter of the application — Obligation to base the refusal to grant access on specific and concrete reasons)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative transparency, blood transfusion, confidentiality, medical centre








C_2022119EN.01003501.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/35






Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Kedrion v EMA
(Case T-570/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Collection and processing of plasma - Plasma master file - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Incorrect determination of the subject matter of the application - Obligation to base the refusal to grant access on specific and concrete reasons)
(2022/C 119/46)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Kedrion SpA (Barga, Italy) (represented by: V. Salvatore, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: S. Marino and C. Schultheiss, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Baxter AG (Vienna, Austria), Baxter Manufacturing SpA (Cittaducale, Italy) (represented by: F. Borrás Pieri, lawyer, A. Denoon, Solicitor, and C. Thomas, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the EMA’s decision of 10 July 2020 refusing to grant the applicant access to the list of blood collection and processing centres appearing in the plasma master file of the pharmaceutical company Takeda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 10 July 2020 refusing to grant Kedrion SpA access to the list of blood collection and processing centres appearing in the plasma master file of the pharmaceutical company Takeda;










2.


Orders the EMA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kedrion;










3.


Orders Baxter AG and Baxter Manufacturing SpA to each bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.