do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-211/23: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Fractal Analytics v EUIPO – Fractalia Remote Systems (FRACTALIA Remote Systems) (EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark FRACTALIA Remote Systems – Genuine use of the mark – Article 18(1) and (2) and Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Nature of use – Assessment of evidence – Comparison of the subcategories of services used and the specification of the services covered by the mark)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, computer equipment, registered trade mark, research, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_202407162EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7162


9.12.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Fractal Analytics v EUIPO – Fractalia Remote Systems (FRACTALIA Remote Systems)


(Case T-211/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark FRACTALIA Remote Systems - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18(1) and (2) and Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Nature of use - Assessment of evidence - Comparison of the subcategories of services used and the specification of the services covered by the mark)
(C/2024/7162)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fractal Analytics, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, 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: Fractalia Remote Systems, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Jáudenes Sánchez, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 January 2023 (Case R 858/2022-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fractal Analytics, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fractalia Remote Systems, SL;










3.


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






(1)  
            OJ C 235, 3.7.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7162/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-654/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Silex v Eismea (Arbitration clause – Technological research and development – Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) – Grant agreement – Action for annulment – Debit note – Letter rejecting declared costs as ineligible and ordering the recovery of a contribution paid to the guarantee fund – Acts not amenable to review – Acts forming part of a purely contractual framework from which they are inseparable – Inadmissibility – Reclassification of the action – Obligation to state reasons – Eligible costs – Proportionality)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, admissibility, debt, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality, project funding, research and development








C_202407159EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7159


9.12.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Silex v Eismea


(Case T-654/20)
                (1)

(Arbitration clause - Technological research and development - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ (2014-2020) - Grant agreement - Action for annulment - Debit note - Letter rejecting declared costs as ineligible and ordering the recovery of a contribution paid to the guarantee fund - Acts not amenable to review - Acts forming part of a purely contractual framework from which they are inseparable - Inadmissibility - Reclassification of the action - Obligation to state reasons - Eligible costs - Proportionality)
(C/2024/7159)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Silex Ipari Automatizálási Zrt. (Silex Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (represented by: T. Somlai, A. Galea and F. Couplan, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU and, in the alternative, on Article 272 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in the first place, annulment of debit note No 3242009492 in the amount of EUR 55 454,44, issued by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (EASME) on the basis of grant agreement ‘739280 – Electric axle for commercial vehicles – ELECTRIC_AXLE’, and, in the second place, annulment of the letter Ares (2020) 4309529 of 18 August 2020, by which EASME, first, decided to recover its contribution to the guarantee fund in the amount of EUR 48 238,75, and second, classified as ineligible direct personnel costs in the amount of EUR 210 423,11 and indirect costs in the amount of EUR 52 605,78.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Silex Impari Automatizálási Zrt. (Silex Zrt.) to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7159/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Action brought on 16 October 2024 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-29/24)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, administrative formalities, export (EU), market approval, medicinal product, national implementing measure, pharmaceutical legislation, public health, single market








C_202407132EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7132


28.11.2024






Action brought on 16 October 2024 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-29/24)
(C/2024/7132)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 October 2024 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Sigurbjörn Bernharð Edvardsson, Sigrún Ingibjörg Gísladóttir and Melpo-Menie Joséphidès, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Avenue de Arts 19H, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 6 of Annex XVII to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) 2019/933 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order, as such, and










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


By this application, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘ESA’) seeks a declaration from the Court that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 6 of Annex XVII to the EEA Agreement, as adapted by Protocol 1 to that Agreement, part of its internal legal order, as such, as required by Article 7 EEA.










—


Iceland did not reply to ESA’s letter of formal notice of 22 September 2023.










—


ESA delivered a reasoned opinion on 6 March 2024 giving Iceland two months in which to take the measures necessary to comply with the reasoned opinion, i.e. no later than 6 May 2024.










—


No response from Iceland was received by ESA within the time-frame specified in the reasoned opinion.










—


Since Iceland had not complied with the reasoned opinion by the deadline set therein, ESA decided to refer the matter to the Court, pursuant to Article 31 SCA.










—


ESA notes that, at the point of lodging the present application, Iceland had not informed ESA of any measures adopted to make the Act part of its internal legal order. Moreover, ESA was not in possession of any other information which indicated that the act had been made part of Iceland’s internal legal order.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7132/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.113446
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Hesse, State aid, animal production, control of State aid, crop production, hunting, service








C_202406191EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6191


16.10.2024






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.113446
(C/2024/6191)








Date of adoption of the decision


9.7.2024




Aid number


SA.113446




Member State


Germany




Region


Hessen




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Hessen: Biodiversitäts-Plus auf Grünland - H.3




Legal basis


Hessisches Programm für Agrarumwelt- und Landschaftspflege-Maßnahmen HALM 2




Type of measure


Scheme


 




Objective


Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas, Aid for agri-environment-climate commitments




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 5 600 000  EUR
Annual budget: 800 000  EUR




Intensity


100,0 %




Duration


Until 31.12.2030




Economic sectors


Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities




Name and address of the granting authority







Bewilligungsstellen s. Anlage 13 der RL (Nr. 1 - 16)




Bewilligungsstellen s. Anlage 13 der RL (Nr. 1 - 16)








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/2024/6191/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-530/24: Action brought on 16 October 2024 – FU v Parliament
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, occupational accident, occupational accident insurance, principle of proportionality, report, staff regulations (EU)








C_202407180EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7180


9.12.2024






Action brought on 16 October 2024 – FU v Parliament


(Case T-530/24)

(C/2024/7180)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FU (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 30 November 2023 rejecting the applicant’s accident report of 27 November 2023 on the ground that it is out of time;










—


order the Parliament to pay 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 infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant claims that the rejection of the accident report constitutes an infringement of the right to insurance against the risk of accidents provided for by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations which guarantees cover from the date of entry into the service. The applicant submits that the Parliament misapplied that article.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2, 4, 7 and 15 of the common rules on insurance against the risk of accident. The contested decision was taken on the basis of an alleged delay in the accident report, which is disputed by the applicant, who maintains, on the contrary, that the accident report was submitted within the prescribed period in view of the circumstances. The applicant relies on errors of interpretation concerning the period for submitting an accident report and the conclusions to be drawn from any delay, which cannot automatically lead to the exclusion from cover and guaranteed benefits.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits that the contested decision penalised her disproportionately for a minor administrative issue, whereas priority should have been given to the substantive right to compensation for accidents in view of the fact that there was no infringement of the rights of the appointing authority. The appointing authority neither contested the facts nor alleged an infringement of its rights.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7180/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-538/24: Action brought on 16 October 2024 – Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Commission
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, airline, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, freedom to provide services, indemnification, right of establishment, transport licence








C_202500192EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/192


13.1.2025






Action brought on 16 October 2024 – Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Commission


(Case T-538/24)

(C/2025/192)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, S. Rating, D. Pérez de Lamo and C. Cozzani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 15 April 2024 on State Aid SA.109677(2020/NN) – Italy – COVID-19 Amendment of the compensation scheme for airlines with an EU operating license delivered by Italy (1);










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs;










—


order any interveners to pay their costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Decision infringes the freedom to provide services (Articles 15 of Regulation 1008/2008 (2) and 56 TFUE) and the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision infringes Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of the Rome I Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision infringes Article 107(2)(b) TFEU insofar it manifestly errs in the assessment of (i) the direct causal link between the COVID-19 pandemic and the eligible damage and (ii) the proportionality of the aid measure.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the Applicant’s procedural rights.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFUE.






(1)  Official Journal, 2004, C/2024/2339.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ 2008, L 293, p. 3).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/192/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-540/24: Action brought on 16 October 2024 – RH v Commission
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, European Development Fund, disciplinary proceedings, principle of proportionality, public procurement, sanction (EU)








C_202500085EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/85


6.1.2025






Action brought on 16 October 2024 – RH v Commission


(Case T-540/24)

(C/2025/85)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: RH (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 6 August 2024 to exclude the applicant from the date of the notification for a period of nine months from participating in award procedures governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 (2) or from being selected for the implementation of funds as governed by those Regulations;










—


compensate the applicant for the prejudice suffered;










—


order the defendant to pay the entire costs.





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 error of law in the legal characterisation of the grave professional misconduct - Error of assessment of the facts and of the evident absence of grave professional misconduct, in particular as referred to in point (c)(v) of Article 136(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (which is in any case a manifest error).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of the duty of diligence and good administration as reflected in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 136(6) and 136(7) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality regarding the sanction of exclusion.






(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).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 of 26 November 2018 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund, and repealing Regulation (EU) 2015/323 (OJ 2018 L 307, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/85/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)