do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-57/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Hungary v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Obligation to increase on-the-spot checks — Article 35 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 — Legal value of the working documents of the Commission — Calculation of the increase in the rate of on-the-spot checks)
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2022244EN.01002702.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/27






Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-57/21) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Obligation to increase on-the-spot checks - Article 35 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 - Legal value of the working documents of the Commission - Calculation of the increase in the rate of on-the-spot checks)
(2022/C 244/35)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina, A. Sauka and Z. Teleki, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10), only in so far as the European Commission excluded the sum of EUR 4 334 068,02 from the amount of financial aid granted to it by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the financial year 2018 on account of an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), only in so far as that the European Commission excluded the sum of EUR 4 334 068,02 from the amount of financial aid granted to Hungary by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the financial year 2018 on account of an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Case T-219/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Agora Invest v EUIPO — Transportes Maquinaria y Obras (TRAMOSA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TRAMOSA — Earlier EU figurative mark TRAMO, SA TRANSPORTE MAQUINARIA Y OBRAS, S.A. — 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) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carriage of goods, combined transport, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2022237EN.01005001.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/50






Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Agora Invest v EUIPO — Transportes Maquinaria y Obras (TRAMOSA)
(Case T-219/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TRAMOSA - Earlier EU figurative mark TRAMO, SA TRANSPORTE MAQUINARIA Y OBRAS, S.A. - 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) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)
(2022/C 237/63)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Agora Invest, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Transportes Maquinaria y Obras, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2021 (Case R 566/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Transportes Maquinaria y Obras and Agora Invest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Agora Invest, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Case T-735/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Planistat Europe and Charlot v Commission (Non-contractual liability — ‘Eurostat’ case — External investigation by OLAF — Forwarding to the national judicial authorities of information concerning matters liable to result in criminal proceedings before the conclusion of the investigation — Filing of a complaint by the Commission before the conclusion of the investigation — National criminal proceedings — Ruling that there is no need to adjudicate which has become final — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Eurostat, confidentiality, criminal procedure, criminal proceedings, damages, offence








C_2022244EN.01002701.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/27






Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Planistat Europe and Charlot v Commission
(Case T-735/20) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - ‘Eurostat’ case - External investigation by OLAF - Forwarding to the national judicial authorities of information concerning matters liable to result in criminal proceedings before the conclusion of the investigation - Filing of a complaint by the Commission before the conclusion of the investigation - National criminal proceedings - Ruling that there is no need to adjudicate which has become final - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
(2022/C 244/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Planistat Europe (Paris, France), Hervé-Patrick Charlot (Paris) (represented by: F. Martin Laprade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Blanc, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 268 TFEU, the applicants seek compensation, first, for the non-material damage that Mr Charlot allegedly suffered as a result of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) having forwarded to the national authorities information relating to matters liable to be characterised as criminal, as well as of the complaint filed by the Commission with those authorities, and, secondly, for the material damage that they allegedly suffered as a result of the termination of contracts concluded between Planistat and the Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Planistat Europe and Mr Hervé-Patrick Charlot to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union 2022/C 151/07
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, sea fish








C_2022151EN.01000701.xml










6.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/7






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2022/C 151/07)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 31, in the Explanatory note to subheadings

‘0302 33 10 and 0302 33 90 Skipjack or stripe-bellied bonito’

the last paragraph is replaced by the following text:









0302 33 10  and 0302 33 90 



‘These subheadings do not cover the Atlantic or belted bonitos (Sarda sarda), which have oblique bands on their backs. These fish, if fresh or chilled, are classified in subheading 0302 49 90.’






On page 32, after the Explanatory note to CN subheading ‘

0302 43 90 Brisling or sprats (Sprattus sprattus)

’ the following text is inserted:








‘0302 49 90 




Other

This subheading also includes:






1.


the Atlantic or belted bonitos (Sarda sarda), which have oblique bands on their backs, as well as all other Sarda species;










2.


capelin (Mallotus villosus).’










On page 33, in the Explanatory note to subheading ‘

0302 89 90 Other

’ the text is replaced by the following text:








‘0302 89 90 




Other

The saltwater fish falling in this subheading include:






1.


whiting-pout (Trisopterus luscus and Trisopterus esmarki);










2.


comber (Serranus spp.) and grouper (Epinephelus spp.);










3.


striped mullet (Mullus barbatus) and red mullet or surmullet (Mullus surmuletus);










4.


gurnard or gurnet (Trigla, Eutrigla, Aspitrigla, Lepidotrigla and Trigloporus spp.);










5.


scorpion fish (Scorpaena spp.);










6.


sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus);










7.


garfish or needle-fish (Belone belone) and weevers (Trachinus spp.);










8.


smelt (Osmerus spp.);










9.


fish of the species Kathetostoma giganteum.’










On page 34, in the Explanatory note to subheading

‘0305 63 00 Anchovies (Engraulis spp )’
the text is replaced by the following text:








‘0305 63 00 




Anchovies (Engraulis spp.)

The anchovies in brine belonging to this subheading have undergone no further preparation. They are put up in small barrels or jars or often in hermetically sealed cans without having undergone any heat treatment after closure of the can.’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.
Case T-680/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Funline International v EUIPO (AMSTERDAM POPPERS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark AMSTERDAM POPPERS — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022244EN.01003702.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/37






Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Funline International v EUIPO (AMSTERDAM POPPERS)
(Case T-680/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark AMSTERDAM POPPERS - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 244/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Funline International (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: Y. Echevarría García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and modification of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 August 2021 (Case R 439/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Funline International to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.