do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-733/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2024 — Greenspider v Eismea (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Eligible costs — Debit note — Reimbursement of amounts paid)
Date: 2024-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, debt, eligibility criteria, innovation, reimbursement of aid, research and development








C_202402427EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2427


8.4.2024





Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2024 — Greenspider v Eismea
(Case T-733/21) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Eligible costs - Debit note - Reimbursement of amounts paid)
(C/2024/2427)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Greenspider GmbH (Germering, Germany) (represented by: G. Vignolo and V. Palmisano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (represented by: A. Galea, V. Roiseux and M. Katrana, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 272 TFEU, the applicant requests, in essence, the Court to declare that the amount of EUR 107 206,55 claimed in the debit note No 3242101313, issued by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) on 26 January 2021, cannot be recovered, and to order the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (Eismea) to pay it the amount of EUR 111 475, on the basis of the Grant Agreement No 738441 — SMASH, signed on 16 and 22 February 2017, as part of the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Greenspider GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2427/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-536/22: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2024 — PAN Europe v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance cypermethrin — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2049 — Request for internal review — Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Rejection of the request — Identification of critical areas of concern by EFSA — Risk assessment and risk management — Precautionary principle — Discretion enjoyed by the Commission)
Date: 2024-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: discretionary power, market approval, plant health control, plant health product, precautionary principle, risk management








C_202402429EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2429


8.4.2024





Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2024 — PAN Europe v Commission
(Case T-536/22) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance cypermethrin - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2049 - Request for internal review - Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Rejection of the request - Identification of critical areas of concern by EFSA - Risk assessment and risk management - Precautionary principle - Discretion enjoyed by the Commission)
(C/2024/2429)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker, G. Gattinara and M. ter Haar, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 23 June 2022 by which the latter rejected the request for internal review made by PAN Europe in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13), in respect of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2049 of 24 November 2021 renewing the approval of the active substance cypermethrin as a candidate for substitution in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2021 L 420, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 408, 24.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2429/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-103/24: Action brought on 21 February 2024 – Qx World v EUIPO – Mandelay (EDUCTOR)
Date: 2024-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hairdressing and beauty care, health service, measuring equipment, medical device, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, teaching materials, trade-mark law, veterinary medicine








C_202402635EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2635


22.4.2024






Action brought on 21 February 2024 – Qx World v EUIPO – Mandelay (EDUCTOR)


(Case T-103/24)

(C/2024/2635)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László and A. Cserny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark EDUCTOR – European Union trade mark No 11 043 296)

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2023 in Case R 9/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


remit the case to EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal;










—


order the defendant and the intervener, if any, to bear the costs of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2635/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-102/24: Action brought on 21 February 2024 – Qx World v EUIPO – Mandelay (EDUCTOR)
Date: 2024-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, health service, medical device, medical diagnosis, registered trade mark, therapeutics, trade-mark law, veterinary medicine








C_202402634EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2634


22.4.2024






Action brought on 21 February 2024 – Qx World v EUIPO – Mandelay (EDUCTOR)


(Case T-102/24)

(C/2024/2634)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László and A. Cserny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark EDUCTOR – European Union trade mark No 12 250 593
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2023 in Case R 8/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


remit the case to EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal;










—


order the defendant and the intervener, if any, to bear the costs of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2634/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-172/23: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2024 — Dendiki v EUIPO — D-Market (hepsiburada) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark hepsiburada — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2024-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, consumer goods, electronic commerce, household article, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_202402435EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2435


8.4.2024





Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2024 — Dendiki v EUIPO — D-Market (hepsiburada)
(Case T-172/23) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark hepsiburada - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(C/2024/2435)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dendiki BV (Roosendaal, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Ruyters and A. Klomp, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: D-Market Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi, (Istanbul, Türkiye) (represented by: I. Robledo McClymont and M. Hernández Gázquez, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 January 2023 (Case R 639/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dendiki BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by D-Market Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi;










3.


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






(1)  
            OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2435/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-180/23: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2024 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Samar’t Pharma (BI blue pigment) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BI blue pigment — Earlier EU figurative mark Bi.cell — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2024-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202402437EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2437


8.4.2024





Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2024 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Samar’t Pharma (BI blue pigment)
(Case T-180/23) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BI blue pigment - Earlier EU figurative mark Bi.cell - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2024/2437)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Samar’t Pharma, SL (Vilamalla, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 January 2023 (Case R 1102/2022-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders L’Oréal and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 179, 22.5.2023



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2437/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-100/24: Action brought on 21 February 2024 — Qx World v EUIPO — Scio International (SCIO THETA)
Date: 2024-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, marketing, medical device, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_202402454EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2454


8.4.2024





Action brought on 21 February 2024 — Qx World v EUIPO — Scio International (SCIO THETA)
(Case T-100/24)
(C/2024/2454)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László and A. Cserny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Scio International SRL (Sânmartin, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SCIO THETA — European Union trade mark No 15 490 717

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2023 in joined cases R 1054/2021-4 and R 1080/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it rejected the applicant’s appeal and cross-appeal;










—


remit the case to EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 68(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as of the essential procedural requirement for respect of the applicant’s rights to good administration, a remedy and to be heard.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2454/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-114/24: Action brought on 21 February 2024 — Masset v Commission
Date: 2024-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Food Safety Authority, chemical product, environmental protection, health risk, herbicide, market approval, plant health control








C_202402457EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2457


8.4.2024





Action brought on 21 February 2024 — Masset v Commission
(Case T-114/24)
(C/2024/2457)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Dominique Masset (Lens, France) (represented by: G. Tumerelle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 (1) of 28 November 2023 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1107/2009. (2) In the first place, the applicant states that the analysis methodology applied by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission for the adoption of Regulation 2023/2660 infringes Regulation No 1107/2009 as interpreted in the judgment of 2 October 2019, Blaise and Others (C-616/17, EU:C:2019:800). In the second place, the applicant claims that the contested implementing regulation infringes Article 4 of Regulation No 1107/2009, on the ground that it does not meet the approval criteria.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to ensure a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment as provided for by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Regulation No 1107/2009.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the precautionary principle.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to enjoy a clean environment.






(1)  OJ L, 2023/2660.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2457/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-224/23: Order of the General Court of 21 February 2024 – VY v Parliament
Date: 2024-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, indemnification, servant (EU), termination of employment








C_202402952EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2952


6.5.2024






Order of the General Court of 21 February 2024 – VY v Parliament


(Case T-224/23)
                (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Termination of the contract - Withdrawal of the contested measure - Compensation for non-material damage - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(C/2024/2952)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: VY (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr, K. Zejdová and R. Schiano, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks (i) annulment of the decision of 9 June 2022 terminating his contract of employment and annulment of the decision of 17 January 2023 rejecting his complaint brought against the contested decision, and (ii) compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order









1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.












2.


The European Parliament shall pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 235, 3.7.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2952/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)