do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-3/25: Action brought on 2 January 2025 – Zündapp v EUIPO – Longines (Device of a stylised shield with horizontal bars)
Date: 2025-01-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202501443EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1443


10.3.2025






Action brought on 2 January 2025 – Zündapp v EUIPO – Longines (Device of a stylised shield with horizontal bars)


(Case T-3/25)

(C/2025/1443)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Zündapp Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Zossen, Germany) (represented by: M. Müller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des Montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Device of a stylised shield with horizontal bars) – Application for registration No 18 702 981
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2024 in Case R 262/2024-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


alter the contested decision to the effect that the opposition against the trade mark at issue is rejected;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1443/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-4/25: Action brought on 2 January 2025 – IPSO v ECB
Date: 2025-01-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, committee (EU), disclosure of information, election, institutional structure








C_202501544EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1544


17.3.2025






Action brought on 2 January 2025 – IPSO v ECB


(Case T-4/25)

(C/2025/1544)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: International and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Central Bank’s decision of 22 October 2024 rejecting the applicant’s request for public access to documents related to the consultation on the amendment of the Administrative Circular 1/2019 of 23 July 2019 on election rules for elected committees (‘the contested decision’); and










—


order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s cost for the present proceedings.





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 that the ECB has infringed the second indent of Article 4(2) of Decision 2004/258/EC of the European Central Bank (1) (‘Decision ECB/2004/3’).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Article 4(3) of Decision ECB/2004/3 is illegal and should be left unapplied.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB infringed Article 4(3) of Decision ECB/2004/3.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the disclosure of the identified documents is justified by an overriding public interest.






(1)  Decision 2004/258/EC of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1544/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-6/25: Action brought on 2 January 2025 – QI v Commission
Date: 2025-01-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, dismissal, equal treatment, harassment at work, medical report, occupational disease, right to justice, staff regulations (EU)








C_202501243EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1243


3.3.2025






Action brought on 2 January 2025 – QI v Commission


(Case T-6/25)

(C/2025/1243)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: QI (represented by: N. Flandin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


find the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;










—


annul the decision of the Commission of 10 November 2023 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and her request under Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations;










—


annul the decision of the Commission of 23 September 2024 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 12 February 2024 on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the contested decision of 10 November 2023;










—


order the payment of damages estimated ex æquo et bono at EUR 75 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the entire amount of 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 that the rejection decision and the contested decision are unlawful owing to failure to take into account the decision of the Office for the ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) recognising the occupational origin of the applicant’s illness, and also alleging incorrect reasoning.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection decision and the contested decision are unlawful since the applicant has been asked to provide proof of harassment rather than prima facie evidence, and also alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging other unlawful aspects vitiating the contested decision and the rejection decision which the applicant wishes to highlight:






—


Unlawfulness of the contested decision and the rejection decision owing to failure to take into account the medical certificates of May and June 2020;










—


Unlawfulness of the contested decision and the rejection decision owing to failure to take into account the facts set out in the first evaluation of 2020 and the removal from her post;










—


Unlawfulness of the contested decision and the rejection decision owing to a denial of justice and a failure to provide reasoning;










—


Unlawfulness of the contested decision and the rejection decision owing to a refusal to examine the complaints and pleas on the ground of a purported lack of competence.










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1243/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-1/25 P: Appeal brought on 2 January 2025 by ZR against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2024 in Case T-634/22, ZR v EUIPO
Date: 2025-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, principle of proportionality, recruitment, right to an effective remedy, right to justice








C_202502054EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2054


14.4.2025






Appeal brought on 2 January 2025 by ZR against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2024 in Case T-634/22, ZR v EUIPO


(Case C-1/25 P)

(C/2025/2054)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: ZR (represented by: S. Rodrigues, avocat, A. Champetier, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested judgment, declare the Appellant’s requests in Case T-634/22 admissible and well-founded, and consequently










—


annul the contested decisions in first instance;










—


or, if this is not possible,










—


refer the case before the General Court for judgement, and, in any case,










—


order the Defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the Appellant raises the following pleas in law:






1.


The rejection of the first plea is vitiated by errors of reasoning leading to errors in law.










2.


The rejection of the second plea is vitiated by an error in law, a breach of the principle of equal treatment, misconception of the Appellant’s arguments, a breach of the duty to state reasons and contradictions in reasoning.










3.


The review of the third plea is vitiated by a breach of the duty to state reasons, by a contradictory reasoning, by an error in law and by a breach of the principles of breach of the principle of restitutio in integrum, equal treatment and of proportionality.










4.


The lack of review of the fourth plea is vitiated by a breach of the right to judge, the right of defence and the principle of effective remedy.










5.


The dismissal of the claim of compensation is vitiated by a breach of the right to defence and by errors in law.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2054/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)