EN
17.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/41
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Cipla Europe NV (Antwerp, Belgium)
Re: By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2021 (Case R 1835/2016-1).
Operative part of the judgment The Court: 1.
Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2021 (Case R 1835/2016-1); 2.
Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
(1)
OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Skryba v Council (Case T-581/21) (1) (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into and transit through European Union territory applies — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Collective nature of a sanction — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality) (2023/C 252/46) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Siarheï Skryba (Marialivo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer) Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)
Re: Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 221/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3), to the extent that those two acts concern the applicant.
Operative part of the judgment The Court: 1.
Dismisses the action; 2.
Orders Mr Siarheï Skryba to pay the costs.
(1)
OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.