do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-200/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — JS v EDPS (Law governing the institutions — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — Rejection of the complaint to the EDPS concerning the storage and processing of personal data by the SRB — Refusal of the request for review — Right to erasure — Right to object — Right to restriction of processing — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2023-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, data protection, data-processing law, judicial review, natural person, personal data, protection of privacy, staff regulations (EU)








C_202300314EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/314


30.10.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — JS v EDPS
(Case T-200/21) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - Rejection of the complaint to the EDPS concerning the storage and processing of personal data by the SRB - Refusal of the request for review - Right to erasure - Right to object - Right to restriction of processing - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of sound administration)
(C/2023/314)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: JS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor (represented by: U. Kallenberger and A. Pouliou, Agents)

Re:

By his action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annulment of the decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 18 January 2021 rejecting his complaint (‘the first contested decision’) and of the decision of the EDPS of 9 March 2021 refusing his request for review of the first contested decision (‘the second contested decision’) (together, ‘the contested decisions’) and, secondly, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of the contested decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders JS to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/314/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-526/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — Gutseriev v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States — Inclusion and retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned — Error of assessment — Right to property — Right to conduct a business — Right to respect for reputation — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2023-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, removal, rights of the defence








C_202300517EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/517


6.11.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — Gutseriev v Council
(Case T-526/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States - Inclusion and retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned - Error of assessment - Right to property - Right to conduct a business - Right to respect for reputation - Rights of the defence)
(C/2023/517)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Senior Counsel, J. Pobjoy, Barrister-at-Law, and D. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Van Overmeire and L. Bratusca, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of:






—


Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3),










—


Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3)




in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  
            OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/517/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-277/22: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — Groz-Beckert v EUIPO (Position of the colours red and white on cuboid packaging) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU trade mark consisting in the application of the colours red and white to cuboid packaging — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_202300322EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/322


30.10.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — Groz-Beckert v EUIPO (Position of the colours red and white on cuboid packaging)
(Case T-277/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU trade mark consisting in the application of the colours red and white to cuboid packaging - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2023/322)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Groz-Beckert KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen and U. Kaufmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Ringelhann and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 March 2022 (Case R 1444/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Groz-Beckert KG to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/322/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-576/22: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — Bora Creations v EUIPO — True Skincare (TRUE SKIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark TRUE SKIN — Earlier EU figurative mark TRUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202300331EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/331


30.10.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — Bora Creations v EUIPO — True Skincare (TRUE SKIN)
(Case T-576/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark TRUE SKIN - Earlier EU figurative mark TRUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2023/331)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Andratx, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange and M. Ebner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P.-F. Karamolegkou and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: True Skincare Ltd (Ascot, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Rieger-Jansen, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 June 2022 (Case R 1712/2021-5)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bora Creations, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by True Skincare Ltd;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 424, 7.11.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/331/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-557/22: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — Chmielarz v EUIPO — Granulat (granulat) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark granulat — International registration of the earlier figurative mark GRANULAT2000 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, industrial waste, plastics industry, recycled product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, waste recycling, wholesale trade








C_202300330EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/330


30.10.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — Chmielarz v EUIPO — Granulat (granulat)
(Case T-557/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark granulat - International registration of the earlier figurative mark GRANULAT2000 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2023/330)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Arkadiusz Chmielarz (Olsztyn, Poland) (represented by: D. Sęczkowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Granulat GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Hufendiek, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 June 2022 (Case R 1197/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Arkadiusz Chmielarz to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Granulat GmbH;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 418, 31.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/330/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-600/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — WS and Others v Frontex (Non-contractual liability — Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 — Directive 2013/32/EU — Directive 2008/115/EC — Frontex’s obligations relating to the protection of fundamental rights — No abuse of process — Admissibility — Causal link)
Date: 2023-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, children's rights, cruel and degrading treatment, damages, external border of the EU, freedom of self-determination, migration control, removal, right of asylum, right to justice








C_202300518EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/518


6.11.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023 — WS and Others v Frontex
(Case T-600/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 - Directive 2013/32/EU - Directive 2008/115/EC - Frontex’s obligations relating to the protection of fundamental rights - No abuse of process - Admissibility - Causal link)
(C/2023/518)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: WS and the five other applicants whose names appear in the annex (represented by: A.M. van Eik and L.-M. Komp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard, C. Rueger, R.-A. Popa, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By their action based on Article 268 TFEU, the applicants claim compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them following the failure of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) to comply with its obligations pursuant to (i) Articles 16, 22, 26, 28, 34 and 72 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC (OJ 2016 L 251, p. 1); (ii) steps 1 to 5 of Frontex’s Standard Operating Procedure seeking to guarantee respect for fundamental rights in the joint operations and pilot projects carried out by that agency; and (iii) Article 4 of the Code of Conduct for joint return operations coordinated by Frontex.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders WS and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex).






(1)  
            OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/518/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)