do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-685/21: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — YV v Stadtverkehr Lindau (B) GmbH
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability, insurance company, insurance indemnity, insurance law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance








C_2022359EN.01006002.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/60






Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — YV v Stadtverkehr Lindau (B) GmbH
(Case C-685/21) (1)

(2022/C 359/69)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Case T-36/21: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — PO v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 1d(1) and (4) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable accommodation — Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability — Directive 2000/78/EC — Obligation to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Responsibility — Material and non-material damage)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, facilities for people with disabilities, indemnification, worker with disabilities








C_2022207EN.01003802.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/38






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — PO v Commission
(Case T-36/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 1d(1) and (4) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable accommodation - Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability - Directive 2000/78/EC - Obligation to state reasons - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Responsibility - Material and non-material damage)
(2022/C 207/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

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

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 29 April 2020, taken following a review, not to include his name on the reserve list for Open Competition EPSO/AD/338/17 as well as the decision of the appointing authority of 14 October 2020 rejecting his complaint and, second, compensation for the harm he allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Case T-445/21: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPALLI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark COPALLI — Earlier national word mark COMPAL — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022213EN.01003901.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/39






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPALLI)
(Case T-445/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark COPALLI - Earlier national word mark COMPAL - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark)
(2022/C 213/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Copal Tree Brands, Inc. (Oakland, California, United States) (represented by: B. Niemann Fadani, 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: Sumol + Compal Marcas SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2021 (Case R 1581/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Copal Tree Brands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action










2.


Orders Copal Tree Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.
Case T-277/21: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background I) (EU trade mark — Application for EU pattern mark — Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background I — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, furniture industry, leather, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2022213EN.01003701.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/37






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background I)
(Case T-277/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU pattern mark - Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background I - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 213/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 (Case R 1895/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a pattern sign representing three-pointed stars on a black background I as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case T-720/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Perry Street Software v EUIPO — Toolstream (SCRUFFS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark SCRUFFS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, protective equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022207EN.01003602.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/36






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Perry Street Software v EUIPO — Toolstream (SCRUFFS)
(Case T-720/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark SCRUFFS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2022/C 207/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Perry Street Software, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and T. Dolde, 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: Toolstream Ltd (Yeovil, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Hourigan, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 (Case R 550/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Perry Street Software and Toolstream.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Perry Street Software, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Case T-173/22: Action brought on 30 March 2022 — T-Systems International v Commission
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, provision of services, public procurement, technical specification, telematics, tendering








C_2022237EN.01005601.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/56






Action brought on 30 March 2022 — T-Systems International v Commission
(Case T-173/22)
(2022/C 237/73)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: T-Systems International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, D. Bogaert and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision to award the contract within the Tender Procedure DIGIT/A3/PR/2019/010 for the provision of services in relation with Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA), of which the results were notified on 21 January 2022;










—


order the European Commission to bear 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 the violation of Article 168(6) of the Financial Regulation (1) and the illegality of all offers submitted within the procedure as the requirements set out in the Tender Specifications make excessively difficult or impossible the implementation of the service, and therefore the submission of a regular offer.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant modified the mandatory requirements set out in the Technical Specifications in violation of the essential conditions of the procedure when assessing the bids of other tenderers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that a high risk of substantial modification of the contract exists, as the Commission awarded the contract on technical terms which it could not have been unaware would be rapidly obsolete, if not already obsolete at the time of its tender, in violation of Article 170 of the Financial Regulation.






(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).
Case T-35/21: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — SFD v EUIPO — Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION — Earlier EU word marks ALLMAX NUTRITION — 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: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cocoa, dietary product, food supplement, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, vitamin, wholesale trade








C_2022207EN.01003801.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/38






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — SFD v EUIPO — Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION)
(Case T-35/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION - Earlier EU word marks ALLMAX NUTRITION - 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 207/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SFD S.A. (Opole, Poland) (represented by: T. Grucelski, 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: Allmax Nutrition Inc. (North York, Ontario, Canada)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 (Case R 511/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Allmax Nutrition and SFD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders SFD S.A. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Case C-659/21: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Orbest, SA v CS, QN, OP and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 5(3) — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Aircraft’s technical failure caused by the collision of a catering vehicle owned by a third party with that aircraft while the latter was parked at the airport)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aircraft, airport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, transport accident, traveller








C_2022198EN.01001401.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/14






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Orbest, SA v CS, QN, OP and Others
(Case C-659/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 5(3) - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Aircraft’s technical failure caused by the collision of a catering vehicle owned by a third party with that aircraft while the latter was parked at the airport)
(2022/C 198/20)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Orbest, SA

Defendants: CS, QN, OP and Others

Operative part of the order

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that the technical failure of an aircraft caused by the collision of a catering vehicle owned by a third party with that aircraft while the latter was parked at the airport may be covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  Filing date: 2.11.2021
Case T-292/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Yanukovych v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022207EN.01003501.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/35






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Yanukovych v Council
(Case T-292/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
(2022/C 207/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, Solicitor, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Haas, P. Mahnič, S. Van Overmeire and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Case T-291/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Yanukovych v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022207EN.01003401.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/34






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Yanukovych v Council
(Case T-291/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
(2022/C 207/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, Solicitor, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Haas, P. Mahnič, S. Van Overmeire and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Case T-299/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — KF v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Complaint of psychological harassment — Administrative investigation — Decision rejecting the complaint — Error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Liability)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: duties of civil servants, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2022207EN.01003601.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/36






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — KF v EIB
(Case T-299/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Complaint of psychological harassment - Administrative investigation - Decision rejecting the complaint - Error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Liability)
(2022/C 207/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: K. Carr and J. Pawlowicz, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

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 EIB’s decision of 27 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of harassment and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 27 January 2020;










2.


Orders the EIB to pay KF the amount of EUR 3 000;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


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






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.