title: Case C-168/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG v Günther Bauer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 8 — Supplementary pension schemes — Protection of entitlement to old-age benefits — Minimum guaranteed level of protection — Former employer’s obligation to offset a reduction in an occupational old-age pension — External pension institution — Direct effect)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/3

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG v Günther Bauer
      (Case C-168/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 8 - Supplementary pension schemes - Protection of entitlement to old-age benefits - Minimum guaranteed level of protection - Former employer’s obligation to offset a reduction in an occupational old-age pension - External pension institution - Direct effect)
      (2020/C 61/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesarbeitsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG

         Defendant: Günther Bauer

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which an employer, which provides occupational old-age pension benefits through an inter-occupational institution, cannot, on account of its insolvency, offset losses resulting from a reduction in the amount of those benefits paid by the inter-occupational institution, a reduction which was authorised by the State supervisory authority for financial services which is the prudential regulator for that institution.

                  2.

                  Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that a reduction in the amount of occupational old-age pension benefits paid to a former employee, on account of the insolvency of his or her former employer, is regarded as being manifestly disproportionate, even though the former employee receives at least half of the amount of the benefits arising from his or her acquired rights, where, as a result of the reduction, the former employee is already living, or would have to live, below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold determined by Eurostat for the Member State concerned.

                  3.

                  Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, which lays down an obligation to provide a minimum degree of protection, is capable of having direct effect, so that it may be relied upon against an institution governed by private law that is designated by the State as the institution which guarantees occupational pensions against the risk of an employer’s insolvency where, in the light of the task with which it is vested and the circumstances in which it performs the task, that institution can be treated as comparable to the State, provided that the task of providing a guarantee with which the institution is vested actually covers the type of old-age benefits in respect of which the minimum degree of protection provided for in Article 8 is sought.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case C-390/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de grande instance de Paris — France) — Criminal proceedings against X (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2000/31/EC — Information society services — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services — Connection of hosts, whether businesses or individuals, with accommodation to rent with persons seeking that type of accommodation — Qualification — National legislation imposing certain restrictions on the exercise of the profession of real estate agent — Directive 2000/31/EC — Article 3(4)(b), second indent — Obligation to give notification of measures restricting the freedom to provide information society services — Failure to give notification — Enforceability — Criminal proceedings with an ancillary civil action)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/8

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de grande instance de Paris — France) — Criminal proceedings against X
      (Case C-390/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2000/31/EC - Information society services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services - Connection of hosts, whether businesses or individuals, with accommodation to rent with persons seeking that type of accommodation - Qualification - National legislation imposing certain restrictions on the exercise of the profession of real estate agent - Directive 2000/31/EC - Article 3(4)(b), second indent - Obligation to give notification of measures restricting the freedom to provide information society services - Failure to give notification - Enforceability - Criminal proceedings with an ancillary civil action)
      (2020/C 61/09)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Investigating judge of the tribunal de grande instance de Paris

         Party in the main proceedings

      X

         Interveners: YA, Airbnb Ireland UC, Hôtelière Turenne SAS, Association pour un hébergement et un tourisme professionnels (AHTOP), Valhotel

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), which refers to Article 1(1)(b) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, must be interpreted as meaning that an intermediation service which, by means of an electronic platform, is intended to connect, for remuneration, potential guests with professional or non-professional hosts offering short-term accommodation, while also providing a certain number of services ancillary to that intermediation service, must be classified as an ‘information society service’ under Directive 2000/31;

                  2.

                  The second indent of Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2000/31 must be interpreted as meaning that, in criminal proceedings with an ancillary civil action, an individual may oppose the application to him or her of measures of a Member State restricting the freedom to provide an information society service which that individual provides from another Member State, where those measures were not notified in accordance with that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


title: Case C-447/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 3 — Matters covered — Old-age benefit — Freedom of movement for workers within the European Union — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7 — Equal treatment of national workers and migrant workers — Social advantages — Legislation of a Member State restricting the grant of an ‘additional benefit for sportspersons who have represented the State’ to the citizens of that State)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/10

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava
      (Case C-447/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3 - Matters covered - Old-age benefit - Freedom of movement for workers within the European Union - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7 - Equal treatment of national workers and migrant workers - Social advantages - Legislation of a Member State restricting the grant of an ‘additional benefit for sportspersons who have represented the State’ to the citizens of that State)
      (2020/C 61/11)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: UB

         Defendant: Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that an additional benefit paid to certain high-level sportspersons who have represented a Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions is not covered by the ‘old-age benefit’ referred to in that provision and, consequently, falls outside the scope of that regulation.

                  2.

                  Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes receipt of an additional benefit introduced for certain high-level sportspersons who have represented that Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions conditional upon, in particular, the person applying for the benefit having the nationality of that Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.


title: Case C-590/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Fujikura Ltd v European Commission, Viscas Corp. (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Determination of the relative weight of the European and non-European participants in the cartel — Participation of European undertakings at several levels of the cartel — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/15

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Fujikura Ltd v European Commission, Viscas Corp.
      (Case C-590/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Determination of the relative weight of the European and non-European participants in the cartel - Participation of European undertakings at several levels of the cartel - Principle of equal treatment)
      (2020/C 61/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Fujikura Ltd (represented by: L. Gyselen, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, A. Biolan and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents), Viscas Corp (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Declares that Fujikura Ltd is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Declares that Viscas Corp. is to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.


title: Case C-715/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven eV v Finanzamt Cuxhaven (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98 — Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services — Point 12 of Annex III — Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the letting of places on camping or caravan sites — Question of whether that reduced rate is applicable to the letting of boat moorings in a marina — Comparison with the letting of premises and sites for the parking of vehicles — Equal treatment — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/16

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven eV v Finanzamt Cuxhaven
      (Case C-715/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Point 12 of Annex III - Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the letting of places on camping or caravan sites - Question of whether that reduced rate is applicable to the letting of boat moorings in a marina - Comparison with the letting of premises and sites for the parking of vehicles - Equal treatment - Principle of fiscal neutrality)
      (2020/C 61/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven eV

         Respondent: Finanzamt Cuxhaven

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 12 of Annex III thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that the reduced rate of value added tax, envisaged in that provision, for the letting of places on camping or caravan sites is not applicable to the letting of boat moorings.

         (1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.


title: Case C-911/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 13 December 2019 — Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/21

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 13 December 2019 — Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)
      (Case C-911/19)
      (2020/C 61/26)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Fédération bancaire française (FBF)

         Defendant: Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  May an action be brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for annulment of guidelines issued by a European supervisory authority? If so, is it open to a professional federation to challenge, by means of an action for annulment, the validity of guidelines intended for the members whose interests it protects but which are not of direct or individual concern to it?

                  2.

                  In the event of a negative answer to either of the questions raised in paragraph 1, may guidelines issued by a European supervisory authority be the subject of a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? If so, is it open to a professional federation to challenge, by means of a plea of invalidity, guidelines intended for the members whose interests it protects and which are not of direct or individual concern to it?

                  3.

                  In the event that it is open to the Fédération bancaire française to challenge, by means of a plea of invalidity, the Guidelines adopted by the European Banking Authority on 22 March 2016, did that Authority, in issuing those guidelines, exceed the powers conferred on it under Regulation No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority)? (1)

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 12).


title: Case T-67/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Probelte v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance 8-hydroxyquinoline — Request for amendment of the conditions of approval — Procedure for harmonised classification and labelling — Right to be heard — Legitimate expectations — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Probelte v Commission
      (Case T-67/18) (1)

      (Plant protection products - Active substance 8-hydroxyquinoline - Request for amendment of the conditions of approval - Procedure for harmonised classification and labelling - Right to be heard - Legitimate expectations - Manifest error of assessment)
      (2020/C 61/29)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Probelte, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, G. Koleva and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2065 of 13 November 2017 confirming the conditions of approval of the active substance 8-hydroxyquinoline, as set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and modifying Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 as regards the inclusion of the active substance 8-hydroxyquinoline in the list of candidates for substitution (OJ 2017 L 295, p. 40).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Probelte, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case T-211/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Vanda Pharmaceuticals v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fanaptum — iloperidone — Commission refusal decision — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Scientific evaluation of the risks and benefits of a medicinal product — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/25

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Vanda Pharmaceuticals v Commission
      (Case T-211/18) (1)

      (Medicinal products for human use - Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fanaptum - iloperidone - Commission refusal decision - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Scientific evaluation of the risks and benefits of a medicinal product - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Equal treatment)
      (2020/C 61/30)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, B. Natens, A. S. Melin and C. Muttin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of (i) the Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 252 final of 15 January 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) for the medicinal product for human use Fanaptum — iloperidone, and (ii) the opinion and the assessment report of the Committee for Human Medicinal Products of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 9 November 2017.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Vanda Pharmaceuticals Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Case T-457/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Zotkov v Commission (Civil Service — Contractual agents — Remuneration — Family benefits — Request to treat a person as a dependent child — Conditions of grant — Factors to take into account in the calculation of maintenance expenditure — Error in law)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Zotkov v Commission
      (Case T-457/18) (1)

      (Civil Service - Contractual agents - Remuneration - Family benefits - Request to treat a person as a dependent child - Conditions of grant - Factors to take into account in the calculation of maintenance expenditure - Error in law)
      (2020/C 61/31)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Rosen D. Zotkov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Stankov, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for the grant of the allowance for a person treated as a dependent child and, second, review by the Commission of that decision, after correction of the financial calculation

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Rosen D. Zotkov to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.


title: Case T-501/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkciarz.pl (CINKCIARZ) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark CINKCIARZ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Pejorative term relating to the goods or services at issue)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkciarz.pl (CINKCIARZ)
      (Case T-501/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CINKCIARZ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Pejorative term relating to the goods or services at issue)
      (2020/C 61/32)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: Currency One S.A. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: P. Szmidt and B. Jóźwiak, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2018 (Case R 2598/2017-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Currency One and Cinkciarz.pl.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Currency One S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.


title: Case T-846/19: Action brought on 12 December 2019 — Golden Omega v Commission

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/48

      Action brought on 12 December 2019 — Golden Omega v Commission
      (Case T-846/19)
      (2020/C 61/62)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Golden Omega S.A. (Santiago, Chile) (represented by: S. Moolenaar, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1661 of 24 September 2019 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2019 L 251, p. 1) in its entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers under Article 9(1) of Regulation 2658/87 by unlawfully altering the scope of CN heading 1516.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers under Article 9(1) of Regulation 2658/87 by unlawfully amending the customs tariff because that implementing regulation amends the customs tariff, in so far products are excluded by that implementing regulation from a CN heading in which the product at issue should be categorised on the basis of its objective characteristics and properties.


title: Case T-851/19: Action brought on 16 December 2019 – Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO – Sakkari (SAKKATTACK)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/49

      Action brought on 16 December 2019 – Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO – Sakkari (SAKKATTACK)
      (Case T-851/19)
      (2020/C 61/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Sakkari (Nicosia, Cyprus)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SAKKATTACK in the colours black, red, yellow, white and grey – Application for registration No 16 603 557

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 in Case R 2560/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  order the joinder of the present case with case T-788/19;

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         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 37(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

                  —

                  Infringement of the rule of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-857/19: Action brought on 13 December 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/50

      Action brought on 13 December 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union
      (Case T-857/19)
      (2020/C 61/64)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

         Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  set aside the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action against the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 October 2019 concerning a measure giving effect to the judgment of 20 September 2019, Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union, T-433/17, EU:T:2019:632), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the contested decision was not an appropriate measure to comply with the judgment in Case T-433/17, Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the decision of the Court of 2016 on access to administrative documents, Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular public access to documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to good administration, including the duty to state reasons.


title: Case T-862/19: Action brought on 18 December 2019 — Brasserie St Avold v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/51

      Action brought on 18 December 2019 — Brasserie St Avold v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)
      (Case T-862/19)
      (2020/C 61/65)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Brasserie St Avold (Saint-Avold, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of a tridimensional sign (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 1 408 065

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2019 in Case R 466/2019-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

      Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-865/19: Action brought on 18 December 2019 – Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/53

      Action brought on 18 December 2019 – Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission
      (Case T-865/19)
      (2020/C 61/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia), AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: E. Gergondet, and P. Vander Schueren, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the action admissible;

                  —

                  annul the Contested Regulation, as far as it applies to the applicants; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In their application, the applicants request the Court to annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 (1).
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 2(1), 2(9) and 2(10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) (the ‘basic Regulation’) and committed manifest errors of assessment by incorrectly determining the export price and the normal value and acted in breach of Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 2(5) of the basic Regulation by making its ordinary course of trade determination based on adjusted costs of production.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment, violated the right to sound administration and violated the principle of non-discrimination as a result of its improper analysis of the effect of dumped imports on prices in the Union market for like products.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(7) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment and violated the right to sound administration by failing to assess other known factors causing injury to the Union industry and by failing to ensure that the injury caused by those other factors is not attributed to the dumped imports.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 7(2a), 9(4), 9(5), 18(1), 18(4) and 18(5) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment, violated the right to sound administration and violated the principle of equality and non-discrimination when it decided not to apply the lesser duty rule to imports of the applicants.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (OJ 2019 L 258, p. 21).

         (2)  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 (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


title: Case T-869/19: Action brought on 20 December 2019 — Tetra v EUIPO — Neusta next (Wave)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/54

      Action brought on 20 December 2019 — Tetra v EUIPO — Neusta next (Wave)
      (Case T-869/19)
      (2020/C 61/69)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Tetra GmbH (Melle, Germany) (represented by: E. Kessler, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Neusta next GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Wave — EU trade mark No 12 324 042

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 2440/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and the declaration that EU trade mark No 12 324 042 is invalid;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-876/19: Action brought on 23 December 2019 – Broadcom/Commission

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/55

      Action brought on 23 December 2019 – Broadcom/Commission
      (Case T-876/19)
      (2020/C 61/70)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Broadcom Inc. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: L. Kjølbye, J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Crocco, lawyers, J. Bourke, and J. Holmes, Barristers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Decision in whole or in part; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay Broadcom’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In its application, the applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Decision of 16 October 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom) (notified under document C(2019) 7406 final).
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact regarding the Commission finding of a prima facie infringement resulting from (a) the Commission’s wrong interpretation of the terms of the agreements which Broadcom concluded with six customers (‘the Agreements’), (b) the Commission’s conclusion that it was not required to consider the Agreements’ likely effects on competition, (c) the Commission’s inadequate assessment of the prima facie capability of the alleged restrictions to restrict competition, and (d) the Commission’s unfounded conclusion that Broadcom is ‘at first sight’ dominant in one of the relevant markets at issue.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the Commission’s finding that the interim measures were urgently needed to address a risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition on any of the relevant markets at issue resulting from (a) the Commission’s introduction of an unknown urgency concept which is only justified by the slow pace of its own proceedings contradicting the measures’ inherently exceptional character, (b) the absence of specific factors supporting an urgent need to take action as the Commission limits itself to referring to a series of generic claims, and (c) the Commission’s failure to show any likely damage to competition in any of the relevant markets.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the Commission’s assessment of proportionality, resulting from the Commission’s failure to assess whether an expedited investigation would be more proportionate than limiting Broadcom’s freedom for a three-year period; and in its balancing of the interests involved.


title: Case T-877/19: Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Einkaufsbüro Deutscher Eisenhändler v EUIPO — Tigges (TOOLINEO)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/56

      Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Einkaufsbüro Deutscher Eisenhändler v EUIPO — Tigges (TOOLINEO)
      (Case T-877/19)
      (2020/C 61/71)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Einkaufsbüro Deutscher Eisenhändler GmbH (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tigges Rechtsanwälte and Steuerberater Partnerschaft mbB (Düsseldorf, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark TOOLINEO — Application for registration No 13 959 481

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2019 in Case R 34/2019-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-878/19: Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Bende v EUIPO — Julius-K9 (K-9)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/57

      Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Bende v EUIPO — Julius-K9 (K-9)
      (Case T-878/19)
      (2020/C 61/72)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Gábor Bende (Beloinannisz, Hungary) (represented by: R. Tóth, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Julius-K9 Zrt. (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘K-9’ — Application for registration No 12 040 382

         Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 in Case R 560/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(d) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-884/19: Action brought on 30 December 2019 — Marc Folschette and Others v Commission

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/58

      Action brought on 30 December 2019 — Marc Folschette and Others v Commission
      (Case T-884/19)
      (2020/C 61/74)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Marc Folschette (Leudelange, Luxembourg), Tetyana Grygorenko (Leudelange) and Professional Business Solutions SA (Leudelange) (represented by: N. Bauer, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  allow the application in its present form;

                  —

                  declare that the application is substantiated;

                  —

                  declare that the non-contractual liability of the defendant is incurred;

                  —

                  order the defendant, in respect of the heads of claim set out below, to pay to:

                              —

                              Mr Marc Folschette the total amount of EUR 219 210 (in words: two hunded and twenty-four thousand and twenty-five euros and ninety-five cents);

                              —

                              Ms Tetyana Grygorenko the total amount of EUR 75 000 (in words: seventy-five thousand euros);

                              —

                              the private joint stock company, Professional Business Solutions SA, the total amount of EUR 500 000 (in words: five hundred thousand euros);

                  —

                  together with statutory interest at the rate prescribed by law, from the acquittal judgment of the Court of Appeal of 11 January 2017, or, in the alternative, from the date of the present application until final settlement;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

                  —

                  reserve for the applicants all other rights, pleas and actions.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of EU law intended to confer rights on individuals. The applicants complain that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which is a service of the European Commission, infringed intentionally and sufficiently seriously several rules of EU law, in serious and manifest disregard of the limits imposed on its discretion. OLAF did not comply with its obligation to respect the presumption of innocence or its legal obligation to investigate both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence and to close the investigation where no inculpatory evidence has come to light. Those failures to fulfil its obligations are the direct cause of actual, certain and direct damage suffered by the applicants and in respect of which they claim compensation on the basis of Articles 340 and 268 TFEU.


title: Case T-886/19: Action brought on 28 December 2019 — Design Light & Led Made in Europe and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy v Commission

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/59

      Action brought on 28 December 2019 — Design Light & Led Made in Europe and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy v Commission
      (Case T-886/19)
      (2020/C 61/75)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicants: Design Light & Led Made in Europe (Milan, Italy) and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Maresca, D. Maresca and S. Pelleriti, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the General Court should annul Commission Decision C(2019) 7805, notified on 29 October 2019, by which the complaint of the applicants against Koninklijke Philips N.V. was rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 105 TFEU

                              —

                              The applicants allege infringement of Article 105 TFEU in so far as the Commission unlawfully exercised the discretion conferred upon it to decide not to conduct a more extensive investigation in respect of the complaint made by them. In that regard, the applicants claim that the defendant proceeded from incorrect assessments of the evidence adduced in support of the allegation of infringement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, and that it did not give due consideration to the settled case-law in that regard.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the erroneous application of Article 102 TFEU

                              —

                              According to the applicants, by the contested decision, the Commission, erroneously and without assessing any technical or legal aspects, considered the likelihood of establishing an infringement of Article 102 TFEU to be low, with reference to either the dominant position (in respect of the existence of Philips’ patent programme and Philips’ conduct independently of competitors and suppliers) or the abusive practices consisting in both discriminatory pricing and imposing licences due to alleged but never proved infringements of the patent system.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging the erroneous application of Article 101 TFEU

                              —

                              In that regard, the applicants submit that the Commission erroneously assessed the evidence adduced in support of the allegation of infringement of Article 101 TFEU in so far as it concluded that it is unlikely that the PLP (‘Patent Licensing Program’) and the licensing agreements between Philips, Osram and Zumtobel are an agreement or concerted practice within the meaning of that provision, that it accepted, without verifying, that the conduct is unilateral (which is nevertheless an admission on its part of an infringement of Article 102 TFEU), and failed to take into account that even a unilaterally concluded agreement such as the one in question could conceal a prohibited agreement. In addition, it does not fall to the bodies making the complaint to show actual damage caused to the suppliers’ market, as it is sufficient for them to adduce evidence on the basis of which the Commission could have and should have conducted further investigations.


title: Case T-15/20: Action brought on 10 January 2020 – Skyliners v EUIPO – Sky (SKYLINERS)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/60

      Action brought on 10 January 2020 – Skyliners v EUIPO – Sky (SKYLINERS)
      (Case T-15/20)
      (2020/C 61/76)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Skyliners GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

         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 word mark SKYLINERS – Application for registration No 14 570 915

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2019 in Case R 798/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the EUIPO and, in the event that the Other Party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the Intervener to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Rules 19(2) and 15(2)(h)(iii) of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 of the Commission;

                  —

                  Infringement of Rule 50(1) third subparagraph of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 of the Commission and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 95(2) in conjunction with Article 94(1) first sentence of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-16/20: Action brought on 10 January 2020 – Hub Culture v EUIPO – PayPal (VEN)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/61

      Action brought on 10 January 2020 – Hub Culture v EUIPO – PayPal (VEN)
      (Case T-16/20)
      (2020/C 61/77)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Hub Culture Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda) (represented by: A. Dellmeier, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PayPal, Inc. (San Jose, California, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark VEN – European Union trade mark No 9 158 734

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 November 2019 in Case R 1988/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-509/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Applicable time periods between multiple visits by the national control authorities — Announcement of on-the-spot checks — Implied notice — Articles 25 and 26 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 — Flat rate financial correction)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission
      (Case T-509/18) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Applicable time periods between multiple visits by the national control authorities - Announcement of on-the-spot checks - Implied notice - Articles 25 and 26 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 - Flat rate financial correction)
      (2020/C 61/33)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, A. Sauka and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29) in so far as it excludes expenditure of a total of EUR 151 116,65 incurred by the Czech Republic under the EAFRD.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as the European Commission excluded under that decision expenditure of a total of EUR 151 116,65 incurred by the Czech Republic under the EAFRD;

                  2.

                     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.


title: Case T-589/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Vins el Cep v EUIPO — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien (MIM NATURA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark MIM NATURA — Earlier international word and figurative registrations MM and MM and earlier national word mark MUMM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Vins el Cep v EUIPO — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien (MIM NATURA)
      (Case T-589/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark MIM NATURA - Earlier international word and figurative registrations MM and MM and earlier national word mark MUMM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2020/C 61/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Vins el Cep, SL (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia, Spain) (represented by: J. Vázquez Salleras and G. Ferrer Gonzalvez, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Eltville, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 (Case R 2270/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien and Vins el Cep, SL.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Vins el Cep, SL, to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.


title: Case T-624/18: Judgment of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Gres de Aragón v EUIPO (GRES ARAGÓN) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark GRES ARAGÓN — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Gres de Aragón v EUIPO (GRES ARAGÓN)
      (Case T-624/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark GRES ARAGÓN - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Error of law)
      (2020/C 61/35)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Gres de Aragón, SA (Alcalñiz, Spain) (represented by: J. Learte Álvarez, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, H. O’Neill and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2018 (Case R 2269/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign GRES ARAGÓN as an EU trade mark.

         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 16 August 2018 (Case R 2269/2017-1);

                  2.

                     Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.


title: Case T-647/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — ZQ v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Rejection of the request — Reasonable time — Absence of prima facie evidence — Obligation to state reasons — Liability)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — ZQ v Commission
      (Case T-647/18) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rejection of the request - Reasonable time - Absence of prima facie evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Liability)
      (2020/C 61/36)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: ZQ (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, acting as Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision of 15 December 2017 rejecting the request for assistance made by the applicant on 18 August 2017 and, in so far as is necessary, of the Commission decision of 19 July 2018 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 19 March 2018 and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage he claims to have suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders ZQ to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.


title: Case T-690/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Vita — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Res judicata)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)
      (Case T-690/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Vita - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Res judicata)
      (2020/C 61/37)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2018 (Case R 695/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio and Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 September 2018 (Case R 695/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio, SA and Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd;

                  2.

                     Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe.

         (1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.


title: Case T-729/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Lloyd Shoes (LLOYD) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark LLOYD — Earlier EU figurative mark LLOYD’S — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Lloyd Shoes (LLOYD)
      (Case T-729/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark LLOYD - Earlier EU figurative mark LLOYD’S - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2020/C 61/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lloyd Shoes GmbH (Sulingen, Germany) (represented by: M. Stöckel, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 (Case R 2385/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Lloyd Shoes.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

                  3.

                     Orders Lloyd Shoes GmbH to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.


title: Case T-743/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I.J. Tobacco Industry (I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY — Earlier EU figurative mark JTi — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I.J. Tobacco Industry (I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY)
      (Case T-743/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY - Earlier EU figurative mark JTi - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2020/C 61/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska, J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: I.J. Tobacco Industry FZE (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 (Case R 979/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Japan Tobacco and I.J. Tobacco Industry.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Japan Tobacco, Inc., to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by I.J. Tobacco Industry FZE.

         (1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.


title: Case T-28/19: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Karlovarské minerální vody v EUIPO — Aguas de San Martín de Veri (VERITEA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark VERITEA — Earlier EU word mark VERI — AGUA PURA DEL PIRINEO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Karlovarské minerální vody v EUIPO — Aguas de San Martín de Veri (VERITEA)
      (Case T-28/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VERITEA - Earlier EU word mark VERI - AGUA PURA DEL PIRINEO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2020/C 61/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Karlovarské minerální vody a.s. (Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Mrázek, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aguas de San Martín de Veri, SA (Bisaurri, Spain) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 (Case R 499/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Aguas de San Martín de Veri and Karlovarské minerální vody.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Karlovarské minerální vody a.s. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.


title: Case T-40/19: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Amigüitos pets & life v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect — Earlier EU word mark ONE — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Amigüitos pets & life v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)
      (Case T-40/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect - Earlier EU word mark ONE - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2020/C 61/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Lorca, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 (Case R 272/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Amigüitos pets & life.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 November 2018 (Case R 272/2018-4);

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Amigüitos pets & life, SA, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

                  4.

                     Orders Société des produits Nestlé, SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Amigüitos pets & life, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         (1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.


title: Case T-54/19: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (BIANCOFINO) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark BIANCOFINO — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (BIANCOFINO)
      (Case T-54/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark BIANCOFINO - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2020/C 61/42)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 (Case R 2434/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign BIANCOFINO as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Nosio SpA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.


title: Case T-69/19: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline)
      (Case T-69/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2020/C 61/43)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2018 (Case R 412/2018-1) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     orders Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.


title: Case T-175/19: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft v EUIPO (eVoter) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark eVoter — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft v EUIPO (eVoter)
      (Case T-175/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark eVoter - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2020/C 61/44)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: L. Genz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2019 (Case R 1983/2018-5) relating to an application for registration of the word sign eVoter as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft eV to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.


title: Case T-270/19: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Amazon Technologies v EUIPO (ring) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ring — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Amazon Technologies v EUIPO (ring)
      (Case T-270/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ring - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2020/C 61/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Amazon Technologies, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 (Case R 2211/2018-5), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ring

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Amazon Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.


title: Case T-188/16: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — repowermap.org v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Work mark REPOWER — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/37

      Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — repowermap.org v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)
      (Case T-188/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Work mark REPOWER - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2020/C 61/46)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                     The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case T-394/18: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2019 — Kipper v Commission (Independent service provider for the Commission (free-lance) — Application for social benefits granted to officials in category B — Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/38

      Order of the General Court of 16 December 2019 — Kipper v Commission
      (Case T-394/18)
      (Independent service provider for the Commission (free-lance) - Application for social benefits granted to officials in category B - Lack of jurisdiction)
      (2020/C 61/47)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Michael Kipper (Remich, Luxembourg) (represented by: H-J. Dupré, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application for various social benefits granted to officials in category B.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed for having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it.

                  2.

                     Mr Michael Kipper is ordered to pay the costs.


title: Case T-756/18: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — AG v Europol (Action for annulment — Civil service — Decision (EU) 2015/1889 on the dissolution of the Europol pension fund — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/38

      Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — AG v Europol
      (Case T-756/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Civil service - Decision (EU) 2015/1889 on the dissolution of the Europol pension fund - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility)
      (2020/C 61/48)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: AG (represented by: C. Abrar, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: J. Teal and A. Ketels, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of Europol’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s complaint of 2 July 2018 against Europol’s implied refusal to adopt a reasoned decision concerning his entitlements in the provisional independent pension fund created by Article 37 of Annex 6 to the Europol Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union.

                  3.

                     AC and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) shall each bear their own costs.

                  4.

                     The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.


title: Case T-763/18: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Allegedly unlawful aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers — Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Knowledge acquired — Proof — Duty of diligence — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/39

      Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v Commission
      (Case T-763/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - State aid - Allegedly unlawful aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers - Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Knowledge acquired - Proof - Duty of diligence - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
      (2020/C 61/49)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (Lazarus Kft.) (Békés, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions allegedly adopted by the Commission concerning, first, complaint SA.29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation and, second, complaint SA.45498 (FC/2016) — Complaint by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to undertakings employing disabled workers.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (Lazarus Kft.) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.


title: Case T-12/19: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/40

      Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)
      (Case T-12/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2020/C 61/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: A. Norris, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2018 (Case R 2474/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nowhere and Mr Ye.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                     The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.


title: Case T-66/19: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2019 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaamse Gewest v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Internal market — Fundamental freedoms — Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 — Establishment of a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services — Sub-national authority — Standing to bring proceedings — Individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/40

      Order of the General Court of 10 December 2019 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaamse Gewest v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-66/19) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Internal market - Fundamental freedoms - Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 - Establishment of a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services - Sub-national authority - Standing to bring proceedings - Individual concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2020/C 61/51)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicants: Vlaamse Gemeenschap (Belgium) and Vlaamse Gewest (Belgium) (represented by: T. Eyskens, N. Bonbled and P. Geysens, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. McDowell, R. van de Westelaken and M. Peternel, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission.

                  3.

                     Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaamse Gewest shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

                  4.

                     The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.


title: Case T-74/19: Order of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark DENIM HUNTER — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/41

      Order of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)
      (Case T-74/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark DENIM HUNTER - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2020/C 61/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, 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: Hunter Boot (Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 (Case R 849/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hunter Boot and DK Company.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                     The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.


title: Case T-154/19: Order of the General Court of 20 December 2019 — ZU v EEAS (Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Mission expenses — Act not open to challenge — Act not adversely affecting an official — Irregular nature of the pre-litigation procedure — Premature action — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/42

      Order of the General Court of 20 December 2019 — ZU v EEAS
      (Case T-154/19) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Civil service - Officials - Mission expenses - Act not open to challenge - Act not adversely affecting an official - Irregular nature of the pre-litigation procedure - Premature action - Inadmissibility)
      (2020/C 61/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the part of the decision of 30 November 2018 by which the EEAS Appointing Authority rejected the applicant’s complaint of 27 July 2018, inasmuch as it implicitly refused the request concerning mission expenses submitted by the applicant on 26 February 2018.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     ZU shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.


title: Case T-192/19: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark goclean — Revocation of the contested decision — Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/43

      Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)
      (Case T-192/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark goclean - Revocation of the contested decision - Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2020/C 61/54)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Ceramica Flaminia (Civita Castellana, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and R. Arista, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ceramica Cielo SpA (Fabrica di Roma, Italy)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2019 (Case R 991/2018-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ceramica Cielo and Ceramica Flaminia.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                     The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.


title: Case T-210/19: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — Societá Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Common agricultural policy — Binding rules relating to the regulation of the supply of cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin — Refusal of the application for the adoption of implementing acts — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/43

      Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — Societá Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and Others v Commission
      (Case T-210/19) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Common agricultural policy - Binding rules relating to the regulation of the supply of cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin - Refusal of the application for the adoption of implementing acts - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
      (2020/C 61/55)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicants: Societá Agricola Tenuta di Rimale (Fidenza, Italy) and the 9 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: M. Libertini, A. Scognamiglio and M. Spolidoro, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 6 February 2019 (Ares(2019) 677860) refusing the applicants’ application for (i) a declaration as to the alleged infringement by the Italian authorities of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671) and of Article 101 TFEU; and (ii) the adoption by the Commission of implementing acts, on the basis of Article 150(8) of that regulation, requiring that the Italian Republic repeal rules relating to the regulation of the supply of Parmigiano Reggiano cheese for the period 2017-2019.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Societá Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex are ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.