do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-535/24: Action brought on 16 October 2024 – Russian Maritime Register of Shipping and Jūrų Laivybos Registras v Council
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, principle of proportionality, right to an effective remedy








C_202407181EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7181


9.12.2024






Action brought on 16 October 2024 – Russian Maritime Register of Shipping and Jūrų Laivybos Registras v Council


(Case T-535/24)

(C/2024/7181)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (Saint-Petersburg, Russia), UAB Jūrų Laivybos Registras (Klaipeda, Lithuania) (represented by: J. Iriarte Ángel, J. Ordóñez-Cobo and F. Rodríguez González-Chaves, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Article 1(4)(a) in conjunction with Annex VI, Article 1aa(1)(a) in conjunction with Annex X, Article 1ab, Article 4ha(1a) and (2) of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (1), as ultimately amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2026 of 22 July 2024 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine; and










—


annul Article 3e, Article 3ea(1), (1a) and (2), Article 3eb(1), (2) and (3), Article 5(4)(a) in conjunction with Annex XIII, Article 5a in conjunction with Annex XIX, and Article 5aa(4) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (2), as ultimately amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2026 of 22 July 2024 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine (‘Contested Acts’);










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 7(3) of Regulation 391/2009.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Acts are lacking sufficient reasoning.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of the right of effective judicial review.






(1)  
            OJ 2014, L 229, p. 13.

(2)  
            OJ 2014, L 229, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7181/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-508/23: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Medspa v EUIPO – Hic (ALDO COPPOLA AMO) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark ALDO COPPOLA AMO – Earlier national word marks and earlier international registration of word mark MIAMO – Earlier national figurative mark and earlier international registration of figurative mark MIAMO Healthy Skin System – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vocational training








C_202407166EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7166


9.12.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Medspa v EUIPO – Hic (ALDO COPPOLA AMO)


(Case T-508/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ALDO COPPOLA AMO - Earlier national word marks and earlier international registration of word mark MIAMO - Earlier national figurative mark and earlier international registration of figurative mark MIAMO Healthy Skin System - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2024/7166)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Medspa Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Baghetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hic Srl (Milan) (represented by: A. Mascetti and G. Beltrame, 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 9 June 2023 (Case R 1625/2022-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Medspa Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2023/34, 9.10.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7166/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-494/23: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – HG v Commission (Civil service – Officials – Compensation for damage suffered by the European Union – Recovery of a debt by offsetting – Limitation period – Applicable law – Second subparagraph of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 – Concept of normal circumstances – Prior formal decision establishing the claim which was the subject of the action)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, claim, debt, indemnification, interest, limitation of legal proceedings, private international law








C_202407164EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7164


9.12.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – HG v Commission


(Case T-494/23)
                (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Compensation for damage suffered by the European Union - Recovery of a debt by offsetting - Limitation period - Applicable law - Second subparagraph of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 - Concept of ‘normal circumstances’ - Prior formal decision establishing the claim which was the subject of the action)
(C/2024/7164)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and L. Hohenecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant requests, first, the annulment of the European Commission’s decisions of 10 October 2022 (BUDG.C.4.001/AM/444), of 13 October 2022 (BUDG.C.4.001/PRS/444), of 11 November 2022 (BUDG.C.4.001/AM/444_3), of 12 December 2022 (BUDG.C.4.001/AM/444_4), of 9 January 2023 (BUDG.C.4.001/AM/444_5), of 19 January 2023 (BUDG.C.4.001/PRS/444_6), of 9 February 2023 (BUDG.C.4.001/LM/444), of 10 March 2023 (BUDG.C.4.001/LM/444) and of 11 April 2023 (BUDG.C.4.001/PRS/444) on the offsetting of claims concerning him and, second, that the Commission be ordered to reimburse the sums recovered in the amount of EUR 24 092,59, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders HG to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2023/61, 9.10.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7164/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.115761
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Estonia, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid








C_202406186EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6186


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.115761
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/6186)








Date of adoption of the decision


3.10.2024




Aid number


SA.115761




Member State


Estonia




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Eesti regionaalabi kaart (1. jaanuar 2022 – 31. detsember 2027) muutmine




Legal basis


Goverment Decision of 7.10.2021 on Estonian regional aid map 2022-2027; Government Decision of 22.8.2024 on amendment of Estonian regional aid map 2022-2027




Type of measure


Not applicable


 




Objective


Regional development




Form of aid


 




Budget


 




Intensity


 




Duration


1.3.2024 - 31.12.2027




Economic sectors


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Finance




Suur-Ameerika 1, Tallinn 10122








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/2024/6186/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, Russia, anti-dumping duty, ferro-alloy, import (EU), originating product








C_202406156EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6156


16.10.2024






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(C/2024/6156)


1.   

As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.


2.   Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for an expiry review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.








4.


This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Ferro-silicon


The People’s Republic of China
Russia


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/909 of 30 June 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumtaping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (OJ L 208, 1.7.2020, p. 2)


2.7.2025










(1)  
            OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1036/2020-08-11.

(2)  
            TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6156/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-194/23: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Fractal Analytics v EUIPO – Fractalia Remote Systems (FRACTALIA) (EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark FRACTALIA – Genuine use of the trade 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 the evidence – Comparison between the subcategories of services used and the specification of the services covered by the trade mark)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, evidence, office equipment, registered trade mark, rental business, research and development, software, technology, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_202407160EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7160


9.12.2024






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


(Case T-194/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark FRACTALIA - Genuine use of the trade 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 the evidence - Comparison between the subcategories of services used and the specification of the services covered by the trade mark)
(C/2024/7160)
Language of the case: English

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. Markakis, 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 31 January 2023 (Case R 859/2022-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


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










3.


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






(1)  
            OJ C 189, 30.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7160/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-388/22: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (Arbitration clause – Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Grant agreement – Eligible costs – Staff costs – OLAF investigation – Burden of proof – Right to be heard – Right to an effective remedy)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Framework Programme for Research and Development, allowances and expenses, claim, eligibility criteria, financial aid, interest, proof, right to an effective remedy, wage cost








C_202407022EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7022


2.12.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA


(Case T-388/22)
                (1)

(Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement - Eligible costs - Staff costs - OLAF investigation - Burden of proof - Right to be heard - Right to an effective remedy)
(C/2024/7022)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, M. Vlachou, G. Kelepouri and A. Politis, lawyers)

Defendant: ERCEA (represented by: M. Pesquera Alonso and M. Chacón Mohedano, acting as Agents, and E. Bourtzalas, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 272 TFEU, the applicant seeks a declaration that the debt of EUR 184 224,21, contained in debit note No 3242201592 issued on 28 January 2022, to which the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) claims to be entitled in respect of the performance of a grant agreement for the implementation of a project, does not exist, and an order that ERCEA repay that sum, together with default interest, to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis;










3.


Orders Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis to bear half of its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7022/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-201/23: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – CRA v Council (Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Iran – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Proportionality – Misuse of powers)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, abuse of power, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, legal person, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_202407161EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7161


9.12.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – CRA v Council


(Case T-201/23)
                (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Iran - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Misuse of powers)
(C/2024/7161)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Communications Regulatory Authority (CRA) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. Clay, T. Zahedi Vafa and K. Mehtiyeva, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: D. Laurent, P. Mahnič and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/152 of 23 January 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (OJ 2023 L 20 I, p. 1), in so far as that act concerns it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Communications Regulatory Authority (CRA) to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 189, 30.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7161/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11748 – EPUKI / TTE / WEST BURTON FLEXIBLE GENERATION)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, gas supply, merger control, retail selling, wholesale selling








C_202406461EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6461


25.10.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11748 – EPUKI / TTE / WEST BURTON FLEXIBLE GENERATION)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/6461)

On 16 October 2024, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32024M11748. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6461/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-344/23: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Sergio Rossi v EUIPO –Stefano Ricci (sr 1) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark sr 1 – Earlier national figurative marks SR – Relative ground for invalidity – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, personal effects, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_202407163EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7163


9.12.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2024 – Sergio Rossi v EUIPO –Stefano Ricci (sr 1)


(Case T-344/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark sr 1 - Earlier national figurative marks SR - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2024/7163)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Sergio Rossi SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy) (represented by: C. Sala, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Stefano Ricci SpA (Fiesole, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and N. Galizia, lawyers)

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 2 May 2023 (Case R 89/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sergio Rossi SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 286, 14.8.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7163/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)