ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

With regard to the imposed 5 % corrections with respect to additional coupled payments and measures for rural development: — the second plea in law in support of annulment is a claim that the financial correction to the extent of 5 % with respect to additional coupled payments was imposed on the basis of error as to the facts, failure to state adequate of reasons and an infringement of the principle of proportionality; — by the third plea in law in support of annulment, the applicant claims that there are no grounds for the imposition of the financial correction imposed to the extent of 5 % with respect to Pillar 2 payments and in any event the relevant assessment by the Commission is made on the basis of error as to the facts and is manifestly disproportionate to the risks which its findings with respect to Pillar 2 measures involve. In particular, as regards Measure 214 of the Rural Development Programme, the applicant claims that the correction which has been imposed is in part the second which has been imposed for the same reason and is therefore unlawful and should be annulled.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/29

Action brought on 16 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN-čerpací stanice)

(Case T-123/15)

(2015/C 171/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘UNICORN-čerpací stanice’ — Community trade mark No 11 014 685

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2015 in Case R 153/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/23

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Kaddour v Council

(Case T-155/15)

(2015/C 190/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the production of the file in Case T-654/11;

— Reserve the applicant the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

— Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicant: — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015; — Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

— Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council (1).

(1) OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/29

Action brought on 17 April 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T-187/15)

(2015/C 190/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (Arzano, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Actv SpA (Venice, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy); and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul those chapters and parts of the contested decision which are subject to appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-185/15 Buonotourist v Commission and Case T-186/15 CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission.

In particular, the applicants allege infringement of Articles 93, 94, 107 and 108 TFEU, infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1), infringement of Regulation No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1), lack of competence on the part of the Commission, infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1191/69, a misuse of powers, and infringement of the Communication from the Commission on interpretative guidelines concerning Regulation No 1370/2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/35

Action brought on 10 April 2015 — SLE Schuh v OHIM — Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon Sanayi ve Ticaret (VIOS)

(Case T-191/15)

(2015/C 205/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: SLE Schuh GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Stolitzka, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi (Istanbul, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIOS’ — Application No 11 283 546

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2015 in Case R 623/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action and alter the contested decision to the effect that registration of the mark ‘VIOS’ is allowed to proceed in respect of all the Classes and thus also in respect of: — Class 18: Goods made of these materials (of leather and imitations of leather) and not included in other classes; Trunks and travelling bags; Parasols; — Class 25: Clothing, headgear; In the alternative:

— uphold the action and annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

Declare the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 25 February 2015 and all prior, connected or consecutive measures, including the debit note notified on 27 February 2015, to be null and void, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/19

Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)

(Case T-220/15)

(2015/C 228/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beele Engineering BV (Aalten, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ring, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WE CARE’ — Application for registration No 12 610 143

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2015 in Case R 1424/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/39

Action brought on 8 May 2015 — Grupo de originacion y análisis v OHIM — Bankinter (BK PARTNERS)

(Case T-228/15)

(2015/C 213/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo de originacion y analisis, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Burgueño Minguela and H. Pequerul Palenciano, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankinter, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BK PARTNERS’ — Application for registration No 10 550 051

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 1329/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/41

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)

(Case T-272/15)

(2015/C 245/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Lohmann, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PARKWAY’ — Application No 12 248 278

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2015 in Case R 2062/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is incompatible with article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Right because it was adopted in breach of the principle of reasonable time within the meaning of said article 47.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation has been adopted on an unlawful basis, as Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market infringes EU law because: — it breaches the precautionary principle by providing for a mechanism for the substitution of active substances on the basis of hypothetical risks that are not objectively substantiated; — by adversely affecting authorised substances, it breaches the principle of proportionality in that it goes beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve the objective of a high level of protection; — it distorts competition in the internal market by promoting the substitution of substances in the manner in which it does; and — it infringes the principle that reasons must be stated, so far as concerns the criterion of ‘a significant proportion of non-active isomers’ included in Annex II, point 4, of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/40

Action brought on 27 May 2015 — db Technologies Deutschland v OHIM — MIP Metro (Sigma)

(Case T-267/15)

(2015/C 245/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: db Technologies Deutschland GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Zingsheim, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Sigma’ — Application No 10 779 734

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2015 in Case R 1444/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the decision of OHIM of 28 April 2014 and reject the opponent’s/defendant’s opposition;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/29

Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement

(Case T-182/15)

(2015/C 262/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the European Parliament of unknown date, notified by letters dated 13 February 2015, to exclude IBI IUS for Lot 2 and to exclude STEEL for Lot 3 in the tendering procedure for PE/ITEC-ITS14;

— declare that the contract(s) with other tenderers due to this exclusion decisions is (are) null and void;

— order that the European Parliament has to bear the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, based on the infringement by the European Parliament of the principles of transparency, proportionality and equal treatment as contained in article 102.1 of the Financial Regulation, the infringement of the exclusion criteria as contained in article 107.1(a) and (b) of the Financial Regulation, the infringement of article 158.3 of the Rules of Application, the infringement by the European Parliament of its own Tender Specifications for ITS14, thus invalidating the Decisions of unknown date, notified by letters dated 13 February 2015, to exclude IBI IUS for Lot 2 and to exclude STEEL for Lot 3 of ITS14.

In the primary part of the first and only plea in law, the applicant claims that the European Parliament has failed to correctly apply its own Tender Specifications for ITS14 and the general procedural requirement of patere legem quam ipse fecisti and has infringed article 107.1(a) and (b) of the Financial Regulation and this by excluding the applicant and consequently, the consortia IBI IUS for Lot 2 and STEEL for Lot 3 of ITS14, because of an alleged (and unproven) potential conflict of interest and because of an alleged (and unproven) failure to supply information to the European Parliament.

In the secondary part of the first and only plea in law (subsidiary order), the applicant claims that the European Parliament has violated the principles of transparency, proportionality and equality of treatment (non-discrimination) as laid down in article 102.1 of the Financial Regulation and this by excluding the applicant and consequently, the consortia IBI IUS for Lot 2 and STEEL for Lot 3 of ITS14, because of an alleged (and unproven) potential conflict of interest and because of an alleged (and unproven) failure to supply information to the European Parliament.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/32

Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Tuula Rajala against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-24/14 Rajala/OHMI

(Case T-271/15 P)

(2015/C 262/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tuula Rajala (El Campello, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-24/14;

— annul the appraisal report issued to the appellant in respect of the period from 1st October 2011 to 31 December 2012;

— order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount of EUR 500 — to the appellant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the appellant as a result of the aforesaid appraisal report;

— order OHIM to pay the costs as regards the proceedings in the Civil Service Tribunal and in the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted major facts and based the judgment on the distorted facts. The appellant puts forward the following distortions: — distortion concerning the fact that the timeliness was affected by the appellant’s health problems; — distortion concerning the fact that the timeliness was negatively affected by being the only examiner working in Finnish for part of the appraisal period and one of only two Finnish examiners for the remainder of the appraisal period; — distortion concerning the fact that the appellant handled an uncommonly large number of particularly difficult and time consuming cases; — distortion of facts concerning the negative impact that the implementation of the IP Translator judgment had on the quantitative output of the appellant and the timeliness of the appellant’s decisions; — distortion of the facts concerning the timeliness figures of the appellant compared to other examiners.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when stating that a manifest error in the assessment of performance cannot be revealed from the finding that of the seven competencies assessed, five were deemed to be at least consistent with the level required for the position held.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when rejecting the breach by OHIM of its fiduciary duty.
2.

In the second plea for annulment, it is claimed, in the alternative to the first plea in law, that the adoption of the contested decision exceeded the competence ratione temporis of the Commission (the first part of the second plea in law), or that its adoption was out of time and in breach of essential procedural requirements and is an infringement of the right of the Hellenic Republic to be heard and of its rights of defence (the second part of the second plea in law).
Case T-312/15: Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)

Action brought on 9 June 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)

(Case T-312/15)

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MITOCHRON’ — Application for registration No 11 200 078

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2015 in Case R 507/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the complaint;

— annul the contested decision and dismiss in its entirety the application filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/68

Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) a.o. v Commission and ECB

(Case T-161/15)

(2015/C 294/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd (London, United Kingdom); Dalmar investments Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands); Darlows Consultants Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas); Forestborne Ltd (Tortola); International Corporate Management Company SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Kraxis Investments Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); Magnamox Management Ltd (Nicosia); Megamatic Technologies Ltd (Nicosia); Windward Yachting Ltd (Sliema, Malta); Chupit Ltd (Nicosia); Coburg Investments (Overseas) Ltd (Nicosia); First Trade International Ltd (Tortola); Fitinvest Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus); Halman Consultants (Overseas) Ltd (Tortola); Limtan Investments Ltd (Lanarca, Cyprus); Minnesota Trading Ltd (Nicosia); Protoconsult Ltd (Nicosia); Transcoal Trading Ltd (Nicosia); and Veft Management Ltd (Nicosia) (represented by: R. Nowinski, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission and European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the European Union to make good the damage suffered by the Applicants as a result of the adoption and application of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality in the amounts as stated in the application or such amount as the Court finds to be due to the Applicants;

— order the European Union to legal costs incurred in the bringing of this Application.

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 a violation of Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they discriminated against Cyprus, and thereby, directly discriminated against depositors in Cyprus banks;

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they violated the depositors’ right to protection of property as guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/47

Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

(Case T-341/15)

(2015/C 279/59)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 411 138

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2248/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU The applicant also submits that the decision infringes Article 107(3) TFEU and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In this respect, the defendant should not have assessed the facts examined by it on the basis of its Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, which were published only on 28 June 2014. Instead, it should have applied the guidelines published in 2008. Taking the 2008 standard as a basis, the defendant would not have been entitled to reach a conclusion other than that the alleged aid was compatible with the internal market.
—

The appraisal system 1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof, breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and breach of the appellant’s rights of the defence. 2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the limits of judicial review. The appellant submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal has exceeded the limits of its power of judicial review several times, and appears to be seeking to oblige it to adopt a particular system of staff appraisal. 3. Third plea in law, alleging the Tribunal erred in law in finding that an appraisal system not based on marks lacks objectivity, and infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
—

annul the Decision D(2015)12887 of 27 April 2015 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics, whereby the tender submitted by the applicant for Lots 1, 2 and 4 of tendering procedure ‘Office Furniture’ No INLO.AO-2012-017-LUX-UAGBI-02 ‘for the acquisition of standard, executive and high-end office furniture and accessories’ was rejected and with which the Director-General informed the applicant that, for the evaluation of all the tenders in the above tender procedure, he had not taken into consideration one of the award criteria specified in the tender documents;