ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 245, p. 16);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/51

Action brought on 11 November 2016 — C & J Clark International v Commission

(Case T-790/16)

(2017/C 014/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd (Somerset, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the application admissible;

— Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 225, p. 52);

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that by proceeding without a valid legal basis, the Commission violated the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TFUE.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International, C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74, the Commission violated Article 266 TFUE.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of Footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of the [Invalidated Regulations]’, the Commission violated Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of the Basic Regulation (1) and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity);

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, the Commission violated Article 21 of the Basic Regulation, in any event, it would have been manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest;

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective, the Commission violated Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

(1) 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 L 176, p. 21.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/54

Action brought on 25 November 2016 — CRDO Torta del Casar v EUIPO — CRDOP ‘Queso de La Serena’ (QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA)

(Case T-828/16)

(2017/C 022/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Torta del Casar (Casar de Cáceres, Spain) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Queso de La Serena’ (Castuera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA’ — Application for registration No 10 486 447

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2573/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— vary the contested decision, finding that the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 13(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, are met;

— alternatively, annul the contested decision; and

— in any event, order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant (including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal).

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 2(2) and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of the same regulation, and with reference, lastly, to Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.

— Infringement of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, with reference to Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/55

Action brought on 22 November 2016 — For Tune v EUIPO — Simplicity trade (opus AETERNATUM)

(Case T-815/16)

(2017/C 014/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: For Tune sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland) (represented by: K. Popławska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simplicity trade GmbH (Oelde, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘opus AETERNATUM’ — Application for registration No 11 024 296

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2016 in Case R 152/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/52

Action brought on 25 November 2016 — Celio International v Commission

(Case T-832/16)

(2017/C 030/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Celio International SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium (1);

— in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

— in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the decision alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

2. Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 107 TFEU and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the decision qualifies the purported scheme as granting a selective advantage.

3. Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 107 TFEU and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

4. Fourth plea in law, in the alternative alleging violation of Article 107 TFEU, infringement of legitimate expectations and of the proportionality principle, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the decision orders Belgium to recover aid.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ L 260, 2016, p. 61)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/59

Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Rare Hospitality International v EUIPO (LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE)

(Case T-856/16)

(2017/C 022/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rare Hospitality International, Inc. (Orlando, Florida, United States) (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE’ — Application for registration No 13 948 682

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 in Case R 2149/2015-5

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)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/41

Action brought on 1 December 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (V)

(Case T-848/16)

(2017/C 038/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (representation ‘V’) — Application No 10 345 403

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 in Case R 2129/2015-4

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 151(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) and (3) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95;
1.

First plea in law, alleging an incorrect classification of the Polish retail sales tax as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU as the result of a manifestly incorrect assessment of the condition of selectivity. — The Polish retail sales tax cannot be held to be prima facie selective because, in its design, there are no derogations from the reference system applicable to that tax; the progressive tax rates constitute an inherent element of the reference system of that tax. — Even if the view were to be taken that the two progressive tax rates are not an element of the reference system applicable to the Polish retail sales tax, it would have to be held that at least the more frequently applied tax rate is an element of the reference system; furthermore, the progressive tax rates do not constitute, in any event, a derogation in favour of certain undertakings which, in the light of the intrinsic objective of that tax, are in a similar factual and legal situation to other undertakings. — The progressive tax rates and the threshold amounts for the taxable bases in the Polish retail sales tax are, in any event, consistent with the principle of proportionality.
—

The applicant was given a salary grade corresponding to function group I for his first contract and at the bottom of function group II for the second employment contract he was offered. The function group II involves ‘Clerical and secretarial tasks, office management and other equivalent tasks, performed under the supervision of officials or temporary staff’ while the vast majority of tasks entrusted to the applicant within the scope of his first and his second employment contracts were administrative and advisory tasks as demonstrated in the annexes to the application.
—

order Eurojust to pay damages for the harm suffered by QE, estimated, subject to upward or downward revision in the course of the proceedings, at EUR 20 000 (twenty thousand euros), plus interest from 8 July 2016 when the complaint was lodged, as calculated on the basis of the rate applicable during the relevant period set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two points;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/34

Action brought on 14 December 2016 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe/EUIPO — Marpefa (Vieta)

(Case T-879/16)

(2017/C 053/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marpefa, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

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: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘VIETA’ — EU trade mark No 1 790 674

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2016 in Case R 1010/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/29

Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Salehi v Commission

(Case T-773/16)

(2017/C 053/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dominik Salehi (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: C. Drews, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the defendant has infringed Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013) by failing to refer to the applicant’s letters of 1 July 2016 and 16 September 2016 to take the measures provided for in that provision and to send a communication to the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: infringement of the principle of reciprocity by the strict application of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015

1. Second plea in law, defendant’s failure to act

The applicant complains that the Commission has not adopted measures pursuant to Article 1(4)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1).
—

hold that the EESC committed a misuse of power and infringed its obligation to act in good faith towards the applicant in knowingly misleading her as to the scope of the agreement concluded between the parties on 4 February 2016;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/40

Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Mellifera v Commission

(Case T-12/17)

(2017/C 063/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Willand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision Ares (2016) 6306335 of 8 November 2016, received by the applicant on 11 November 2016;

— order the Commission to adopt a new decision on the merits of the applicant’s request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 on the extension of authorisation for glyphosate;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, (1) in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation and with the Aarhus Convention (2) The applicant submits, in connection with the first plea, that the extension of the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate is an administrative act that is amenable to review in the procedure under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.

2. Second plea in law: infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3) The applicant claims that the Commission was not empowered to extend the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate under the provision referred to above, as that rule was not applicable at all in the present case.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(2) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/37

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Skyleader v EUIPO — Sky International (SKYLEADER)

(Case T-34/17)

(2017/C 078/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Skyleader a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Malmstedt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SKYLEADER’ — EU trade mark No 6 347 827

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 Novembre 2016 in Case R 805/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision No 11084 C of the Cancellation Division and the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Sky International to pay the costs of the proceedings both before the General Court and EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of EU law and of substantial procedural measures of EU law;

— Infringement of principles of good and sound administration;
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and misinterpretation of the concept of an occupational disease by the Council’s Invalidity Committee and appointing authority. The applicant contests, in particular, the committee’s findings that: — Carpal Tunnel Syndrome cannot be recognised as an occupational disease; — it is not the applicant’s Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, but rather the algoneurodystrophy (complex regional pain syndrome) which has developed following a surgical operation on her left hand, that is the source of her inability to return to work.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/62

Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Kuka Systems v EUIPO (Matrix light)

(Case T-87/17)

(2017/C 104/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kuka Systems GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Maneth and C. Huch-Hallwachs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Matrix light’ — Application for registration No 14 779 714

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 886/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that in issuing the decision, ACER has violated several procedural requirements. — In this context, the applicant puts forward that in erroneously basing its decision on Article 15 of the CACM Regulation, ACER consequently followed the wrong procedure for the creation of new bidding zone borders and for the introduction of CAMs. — The applicant further puts forward that the application submitted by the Austrian regulator, E-Control, requesting that the All TSOs CCR Draft be amended was not dealt with in conformity with the procedure provided for under Article 9(12) of the CACM Regulation. — The applicant further alleges that ACER exceeds its competence by declaring that the non-binding Opinion 09/2015 issued in September 2015 has binding effect. Further, so the applicant claims, as the Opinion that was declared binding did not form part of the consultation procedure, the Claimant’s procedural rights were fundamentally violated. — The applicant further puts forward that ACER’s file for the preparation of the contested decision lacks technical studies, analyses and in-depth assessments. The applicant claims that either the Agency provided the applicant with significantly incomplete information and, by doing so, violated the applicant’s right to full access to the case file according to Article 41 of the Charta of Fundamental Rights, either the Agency did not at all prepare and/or consult technical expertise and analyses in order to put the contested decision on a factually sound basis (which would equally amount to a severe procedural error). — Finally, the applicant puts forward that the contested decision is based on facts that have not been sufficiently clarified since the Agency has in particular — but not only- failed to make observations as to where structural congestion exists in the joint German-Austrian market area and where this would to be managed most efficiently; to what extent loop flows take place and affect the German-Austrian border; what effects current and pending measures relating to network expansion and improving network security have; how much of the electricity flowing to Austria via other Member States subsequently continues to flow from there to Germany.