do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of 20 November 2024 in Case E-3/24 – Margrét Rósa Kristjánsdóttir v Icelandic Health Insurance (Sjúkratryggingar Íslands) (Labour law – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59/EC – Article 1 – Notion of worker – Board members – Article 6 – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Compensation for infringements)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, board of directors, civil liability, collective dismissal, labour law, right of action, wage earner, worker information, workers' representation








C_202501817EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1817


20.3.2025







            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         
of 20 November 2024
         
in Case E-3/24
Margrét Rósa Kristjánsdóttir v Icelandic Health Insurance (Sjúkratryggingar Íslands)


(Labour law – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59/EC – Article 1 – Notion of ‘worker’ – Board members – Article 6 – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Compensation for infringements)


(C/2025/1817)

In Case E-3/24, Margrét Rósa Kristjánsdóttir v Icelandic Health Insurance (Sjúkratryggingar Íslands) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur), concerning the interpretation of Articles 1 and 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur) and Michael Reiertsen, Judges, gave judgment on 20 November 2024, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Members of a board of a legal entity may be considered to be ‘workers’ within the meaning of Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, if they perform for a certain period of time services for that legal entity in a relationship of subordination, in return for which they receive remuneration.










2.


It is for the EEA State concerned to lay down the detailed arrangements for the procedures pursuant to Article 6 of Directive 98/59/EC for enforcing the obligations under that directive. Those procedures must, however, respect the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and provide effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for infringements. It is for the referring court to determine whether the rules at issue in the main proceedings comply with those requirements.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1817/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-333/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – MPM-Quality v EUIPO – Elton hodinářská (PRIM) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark PRIM – Earlier EU figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(10(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clock and watch industry, clothing, maintenance, miscellaneous industries, precious metal, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202500550EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/550


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – MPM-Quality v EUIPO – Elton hodinářská (PRIM)


(Case T-333/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PRIM - Earlier EU figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(10(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(C/2025/550)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: MPM-QUALITY v.o.s. (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský and M. Perkov, 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: ELTON hodinářská, a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Matoušek, 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 27 March 2023 (Joined Cases R 1308/2022-2 and R 1325/2022-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders MPM-QUALITY v.o.s. to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 271, 31.7.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/550/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-471/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Lidl Digital International v EUIPO – Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting (Lamp) (Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a lamp – Disclosure of the earlier design – Proof of disclosure – Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lighting equipment








C_202500555EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/555


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Lidl Digital International v EUIPO – Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting (Lamp)


(Case T-471/23)
                (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lamp - Disclosure of the earlier design - Proof of disclosure - Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
(C/2025/555)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers)

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: Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: D. Pahl, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 June 2023 (Case R 598/2022-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 329, 18.9.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/555/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-482/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Qozgar v EUIPO – L’Oréal (CLEOPATRA) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark CLEOPATRA – Earlier EU word mark CLEOPATRA – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202500556EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/556


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Qozgar v EUIPO – L’Oréal (CLEOPATRA)


(Case T-482/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark CLEOPATRA - Earlier EU word mark CLEOPATRA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/556)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Afaaq Ahmad Qozgar (Thiruvananthapuram, India) (represented by: L. Pivec, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2023 (Case R 2509/2022-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Afaaq Ahmad Qozgar to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2023/31, 9.10.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/556/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1159/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Jacob Cohen Company v EUIPO – Giada (613) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark 613 – Earlier non-registered mark J613 – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 2(2)(b)(iv) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202500562EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/562


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Jacob Cohen Company v EUIPO – Giada (613)


(Case T-1159/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark 613 - Earlier non-registered mark J613 - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 2(2)(b)(iv) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)
(C/2025/562)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Jacob Cohen Company SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, G. Affer and F. Tamburrini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. L. Capostagno and R. Raponi, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Giada SpA (Adria, Italy)

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 9 October 2023 (Case R 1439/2022-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Jacob Cohen Company SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/1109, 5.2.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/562/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-403/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Wuxi Suntech Power v Commission (Dumping – Subsidies – Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells originating in or consigned from China – Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties – Undertaking – Invalidation of undertaking invoices – Legal basis – Article 8(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Article 13(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 – Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 – Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and 2017/366 – Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, countervailing charge, import (EU), invoicing, originating product, photovoltaic cell, semi-metal, solar collector








C_202500542EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/542


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Wuxi Suntech Power v Commission


(Case T-403/20)
                (1)

(Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties - Undertaking - Invalidation of undertaking invoices - Legal basis - Article 8(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 13(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 - Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 - Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and 2017/366 - Manifest error of assessment)
(C/2025/542)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wuxi Suntech Power Co. Ltd (Wuxi, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Pethke and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/444 of 25 March 2020 invalidating invoices [that it] issued in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570 (OJ 2020 L 92, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Wuxi Suntech Power Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/542/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1134/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Pich-Aguilera Molins v EUIPO – de Puig Arbolí (Carmen says) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark Carmen says – Earlier national figurative mark del Carmen – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Reimbursement of representation costs – Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, electronic commerce, footwear industry, non-woven fabric, registered trade mark, retail trade, textile product, trade-mark law








C_202500561EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/561


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Pich-Aguilera Molins v EUIPO – de Puig Arbolí (Carmen says)


(Case T-1134/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Carmen says - Earlier national figurative mark del Carmen - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Reimbursement of representation costs - Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2025/561)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Enrique Pich-Aguilera Molins (Olesa de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: E. Zamora Martínez, lawyer)

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: María del Carmen de Puig Arbolí (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

By his 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 25 September 2023 (Case R 2185/2022-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Enrique Pich-Aguilera Molins and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to each bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/971, 29.1.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/561/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Joint political statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: EC conformity marking, computer crime, computer equipment, digital technology, information security, information warfare, market approval, market supervision, single market, software








C_202406786EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6786


20.11.2024






Joint political statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission
(C/2024/6786)

The European Parliament and the Council consider that this Regulation confers additional tasks on ENISA which result in additional workload and would require additional resources in terms of both expertise and number. In view of this, in order to enable ENISA to effectively carry out the tasks under this Regulation, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission consider that an increase in its resources, in particular its human resources with the adequate expertise, may be necessary. Such increase could be provided for in the annual procedure related to the establishment plan of ENISA. Accordingly, the Commission, which is responsible for entering in the draft general budget of the Union the estimates it deems to be necessary for ENISA’s establishment plan, in the framework of the budgetary procedure set out in Article 314 TFEU and in accordance the procedure set out in the Cybersecurity Act, shall assess the estimates for the establishment plan of ENISA entered for the first year after entry into force of this Regulation in consideration of the necessary resources, in particular human resources, to enable ENISA to adequately carry out its tasks under this Regulation.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6786/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-391/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Imerys Aluminates Groupe v Commission (Non-contractual liability – System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/410 – Annex 1 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 – Definition of benchmarks – Answers to frequently asked questions – Causal link)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, damages, greenhouse gas, tradeable emission permit








C_202500552EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/552


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Imerys Aluminates Groupe v Commission


(Case T-391/23)
                (1)

(Non-contractual liability - System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/410 - Annex 1 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 - Definition of benchmarks - Answers to frequently asked questions - Causal link)
(C/2025/552)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Imerys Aluminates Groupe (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Martinet and D. Todorova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester, G. Gattinara and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage which it allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption by the European Commission, on 22 July 2019, of the document entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Imerys Aluminates Groupe to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 314, 4.9.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/552/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)