do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-1041/23: Action brought on 18 October 2023 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (BIFIDOBACTERIUM BREVE DSM24732)
Date: 2023-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, medicinal product, microorganism, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202301178EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1178


4.12.2023





Action brought on 18 October 2023 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (BIFIDOBACTERIUM BREVE DSM24732)
(Case T-1041/23)
(C/2023/1178)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Mendes SA (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Cavattoni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Actial Farmaceutica Srl (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BIFIDOBACTERIUM BREVE DSM24732 — European Union trade mark No 12 868 981

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2023 in Case R 2246/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold its action;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the other party to the proceedings to bear the costs and fees.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;










—


Violation of the right to property of the applicant;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1178/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-769/20: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (Nordica; COVID-19) (State aid — Estonian air transport market — Aid granted by Estonia to an airline in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic — Recapitalisation and grant of a subsidised loan to Nordica — Decision not to raise any objections — Temporary Framework for State Aid — Measure intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Equal treatment — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2023-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid for restructuring, air transport, borrowing, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, freedom to provide services, right of establishment








C_202301137EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1137


4.12.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (Nordica; COVID-19)
(Case T-769/20) (1)

(State aid - Estonian air transport market - Aid granted by Estonia to an airline in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic - Recapitalisation and grant of a subsidised loan to Nordica - Decision not to raise any objections - Temporary Framework for State Aid - Measure intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Equal treatment - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Obligation to state reasons)
(C/2023/1137)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC, (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, V. Blanc, S. Rating, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis and D. Pérez de Lamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, C. Georgieva and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Estonia (represented by N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 5616 final of 11 August 2020 on State aid SA.57586 (2020/N) — Estonia — COVID-19: Recapitalisation and subsidised interest loan for Nordica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1137/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.101109Text with EEA relevance.
Date: 2023-10-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, State aid, air conditioning, control of State aid, electricity supply, energy supply, gas supply, heating








C_202300268EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/268


18.10.2023






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.101109
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2023/268)







Date of adoption of the decision


24.7.2023




Aid number


SA.101109




Member State


France




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Régime d’aides aux porteurs de projets de géothermie profonde




Legal basis


Articles L131-3 à L131-7 et R131-1 à R131-26-4 du code de l’environnement




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Renewable energy, Environmental protection




Form of aid


 




Budget


Overall budget: 195 600 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


 




Economic sectors


ELECTRICITY, GAS, STEAM AND AIR CONDITIONING SUPPLY




Name and address of the granting authority







ADEME




20 avenue du Grésillé — BP 90406 — 49004 ANGERS CEDEX 01








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/268/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-533/21: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — Belaz — upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists — Concept of ‘support for the regime’ — State-owned enterprise — Error of assessment)
Date: 2023-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, legal person, right to justice








C_202301145EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1145


4.12.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — Belaz — upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding v Council
(Case T-533/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists - Concept of ‘support for the regime’ - State-owned enterprise - Error of assessment)
(C/2023/1145)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OAO Belaz — upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding (Zhodino, Belarus) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, and N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, 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 of 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) (‘the initial acts’), and, second, Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 41), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 20) (‘the maintaining acts’), in so far as those acts concern it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders OAO Belaz — upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1145/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-469/22: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Loan agreement concerning a project for the reinforcement of the electricity distribution system in a third country — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)
Date: 2023-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, electrical energy, energy grid, interest, international loan, project funding








C_202301155EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1155


4.12.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-469/22) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Loan agreement concerning a project for the reinforcement of the electricity distribution system in a third country - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
(C/2023/1155)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. Oxangoiti Briones, acting as Agents, and by D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

By its action based on Article 272 TFEU, the European Investment Bank (EIB) requests that the Syrian Arab Republic be ordered to pay the European Union, which it represents, the sum of EUR 28 777 508,71, together with interest, under Loan Agreement No 20948 concerning a project for the reinforcement of the electricity distribution system in Syria.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 28 777 508,71 representing the principal amounts and the contractual and default interest due on 30 June 2022;










2.


Declares that the sum of EUR 27 388 963,40 comprising the principal amounts is to bear default interest, calculated in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Loan Agreement No 20948 concerning a project for the reinforcement of the electricity distribution system in Syria, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 5 February 2001 and amended by letters of 3 October 2003, 28 February 2006, 9 May and 8 October 2007, from 30 June 2022 until the date that payment is made;










3.


Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1155/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-606/22: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — RN v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — EUIPO staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Payment of allowances to a third person in the name and on behalf of the official — Decision no longer to pay certain allowances to a third person in the name and on behalf of the official)
Date: 2023-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, dependant, education, family benefit, staff regulations (EU)








C_202301161EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1161


4.12.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — RN v EUIPO
(Case T-606/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - EUIPO staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Payment of allowances to a third person in the name and on behalf of the official - Decision no longer to pay certain allowances to a third person in the name and on behalf of the official)
(C/2023/1161)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: RN (represented by: S. Moya Felix, lawyer)

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

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 July 2022 in so far as it rejected, first, the application for payment of the education allowance for September 2021 and for the period from 1 to 7 October 2021 and, secondly, recognition of the applicant’s right to receive, from 8 October 2021, half of one third of the household allowance, half of the dependent child allowance and half of the education allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders RN to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  
            OJ C 482, 19.12.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1161/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-590/20: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — Clariant and Clariant International v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Ethylene market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Coordination on a purchase price element — Settlement procedure — Fine — Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine — Point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Repeat infringement — Point 28 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Counterclaim for increase of the amount of the fine)
Date: 2023-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, hydrocarbon, price agreement, sanction (EU), trade information








C_202301135EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1135


4.12.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — Clariant and Clariant International v Commission
(Case T-590/20) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Ethylene market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Coordination on a purchase price element - Settlement procedure - Fine - Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine - Point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Repeat infringement - Point 28 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Counterclaim for increase of the amount of the fine)
(C/2023/1135)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Clariant AG (Muttenz, Switzerland), Clariant International AG (Muttenz) (represented by: F. Montag and M. Dreher, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Boitos, I. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek, by way of principal claim, the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 4817 final, of 14 July 2020, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (AT.40410 — Ethylene) and, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on them ‘jointly and severally’ in that decision. The European Commission seeks, by way of counterclaim, an increase of the amount of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;










3.


Orders Clariant AG and Clariant International AG to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;










4.


Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1135/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2298 of 18 October 2023 approving a Union amendment to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin La Mancha
Date: 2023-10-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Castile-La Mancha, Spain, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, sparkling wine, white wine








L_202302298EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series L













2023/2298


25.10.2023







            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/2298
of 18 October 2023
         
approving a Union amendment to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin ‘La Mancha’
         


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission has examined the application for the approval of a Union amendment to the product specification for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘La Mancha’, forwarded by Spain in accordance with Article 97(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in conjunction with Article 105(3), first subparagraph, of that Regulation.












(2)


The Commission has published the application for the approval of the Union amendment to the product specification in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), as required by Article 97(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in conjunction with Article 105(3), first subparagraph, of that Regulation.












(3)


No reasoned statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(4)


The Union amendment to the product specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The Union amendment to the product specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘La Mancha’ (PDO) is hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 October 2023.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 215, 19.6.2023, p. 32.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2298/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case T-737/20: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (airBaltic; COVID-19) (State aid — Latvian air transport market — Aid granted by Latvia to airBaltic in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic — Recapitalisation — Decision not to raise any objections — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Admissibility — Temporary Framework for State aid measures — Measure intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Failure to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition — Identification of the relevant market — Significant market power — Equal treatment — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2023-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Latvia, State aid, aid to undertakings, air transport, capital increase, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, right of establishment








C_202301136EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1136


4.12.2023





Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (airBaltic; COVID-19)
(Case T-737/20) (1)

(State aid - Latvian air transport market - Aid granted by Latvia to airBaltic in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic - Recapitalisation - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Admissibility - Temporary Framework for State aid measures - Measure intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Failure to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition - Identification of the relevant market - Significant market power - Equal treatment - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Obligation to state reasons)
(C/2023/1136)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis and D. Pérez de Lamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, C. Georgieva and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Republic of Latvia (represented by K. Pommere and J. Davidoviča, acting as Agents), Air Baltic Corporation AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by J. Ysewyn, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C (2020) 4665 final of 3 July 2020 on State aid SA.56943 (2020/N) — Latvia — COVID-19: Recapitalisation of airBaltic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Air Baltic Corporation AS.










3.


Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1136/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)