ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 24 June 2022 — Carmeuse Holding v Commission

(Case T-385/22)

(2022/C 340/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carmeuse Holding SRL (Brașov, Romania) (represented by: S. Olaru, R. Ionescu and R. Savin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the Commission Decision 2022/C 160/09 of 14 February 2022 instructing the central administrator of the European Union Transaction Log to enter changes to the national allocation tables of Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden into the European Union Transaction Log (1) to the extent that it sets a wrong number of free allowances to be allocated to the applicant’s installations Valea Mare Pravat and Fieni for years 2021-2025 and reduces: — a number of 5 355 free allowances for Carmeuse Holding SRL — Valea Mare Pravat installation, located in Valea Mare Pravat, Arges County, Romania, ID 55 in the Union Registry for each of the years 2021-2025; — a number of 4 569 free allowances for the Carmeuse Holding SRL — Fieni installation, located in Fieni, Garii Street No. 2, Dambovita County, Romania, ID 56 in the Union Registry for each of the years 2021-2025;

— order the Defendant to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant in these proceedings;

— take such other or further measures as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs on the calculation of the number of free emission allowances to be allocated to Carmeuse’s installations.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached several fundamental principles of EU law when issuing the contested decision, namely the principle of equality, the principle of certainty and legitimate expectations and Carmeuse’s right to good administration and right of defence, which has resulted in the allocation of fewer free emission allowances to Carmeuse’s installations.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned as regards the number of free emission allowances allocated to Carmeuse’s installations, in that it does not detail the decision-making process, nor the reasons for rejecting Carmeuse’s arguments, and it does not address the essential reasons for which the formula thus applied by the Commission supersedes the binding legislation.

(1) Commission Decision of 14 February 2022 instructing the Central Administrator of the European Union Transaction Log to enter changes to the national allocation tables of Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden into the European Union Transaction Log 2022/C 160/09 — C/2022/968 (OJ 2022 C 160, p. 27).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — Spreewood Distillers v EUIPO — Radgonske gorice (STORK)

(Case T-433/22)

(2022/C 326/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Spreewood Distillers GmbH (Schlepzig, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Radgonske gorice d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Slovenia)

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 STORK — Application for registration No 18 170 885

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2022 in Case R 1782/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 in not providing the applicant with his personal data in the prescribed three-month time limit and in extending the said time limit when the European Commission may not extend it. The failure by the European Commission to respond to an application for access to personal data within the time limit laid down in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 amounts to a decision to refuse such access. Such time limits, laid down in the public interest, cannot be modified by the parties. Pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, which is the specific expression of the principle of judicial protection, any refusal of access to the personal data requested from the administration may be subject to challenge by way of court proceedings.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawful nature of the Grant Agreement (GA) suspension confirmation letter — Misapplication of Article 33.2.1 (a) of the GA 874904-TTD.EU (definition of ‘substantial errors, irregularities or fraud’) — Breach of the principle of presumption of innocence and of Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; — Manifest error of assessment as a matter of EU law — Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations — Breach of the good faith principles as a matter of EU and Belgian law — Breach of the combined application of Articles 1134 and 1156 of the Civil Code of Belgium.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 August 2022 — NSD v Council

(Case T-494/22)

(2022/C 368/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NKO AO National Settlement Depository (NSD) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Tuominen, M. Krestiyanova, J.-P. Fierens, C. Vangoidsenhoven and C. Gieskes, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) in their entirety insofar as they affect the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts breach the obligation to state adequate reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council’s reasoning is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. The applicant claims that the facts relied on by the Council are unsubstantiated, factually incorrect, and unfounded.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the effects resulting from the contested acts constitute a disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental rights protected, in particular, by Articles 16 and 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that since the Council failed to meet the required standard of proof, individual sanctions against the applicant are unlawful.

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (JO 2022 L 153, p. 15).

(2) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (JO 2022 L 153, p. 92).
Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-465/22)

(2022/C 359/107)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:

— for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising: — EUR 233 051,96, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 200 900,30, interest of EUR 2 014,25 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 30 137,41. — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.

— for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law:

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Levantur v EUIPO — Fantasia Hotels & Resorts (Fantasia BAHIA PRINCIPE HOTELS & RESORTS)

(Case T-504/22)

(2022/C 380/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Levantur, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero Lavie and C. Caballero Pastor, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fantasia Hotels & Resorts, SL (Zaragoza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark BAHIA PRINCIPE HOTELS & RESORTS — EU trade mark No 17 365 016

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2022 in Case R 1000/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings (FANTASÍA HOTELS & RESORTS, SL) to pay the costs of the present action before the General Court;

— order the cancellation applicant, FANTASÍA HOTELS & RESORTS, SL, to pay the costs of the proceedings in Case R 1000/2021-1 and of the cancellation proceedings No. 36483 C.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 16(1)(b), 7(2)(d), 8(5) and 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and of the requirement to state reasons and the principles of legal certainty and sound administration;

— Infringement of Articles 60(1)(c), 8(4), 95(1) and 97(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of Articles 7(2)(d) and 10(3) and (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and the relevant case-law;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 August 2022 — Bimbo v EUIPO — Bottari Europe (BimboBIKE)

(Case T-509/22)

(2022/C 389/18)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bottari Europe Srl (Pomponesco, Italy)

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 BimboBIKE — Application for registration No 18 274 340

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2022 in Case R 2110/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare inapplicable the order that the applicant bear the costs incurred by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO and the intervening party to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 18 July 2022 — Sberbank Europe v SRB

(Case T-450/22)

(2022/C 389/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare void pursuant to Art. 264 TFEU the SRB’s No Resolution-decision dated 1 March 2022 with respect to the applicant;

— order the SRB to bear the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence by adopting a decision with respect to the applicant instead of simply refraining from any action in accordance with its finding that the conditions of Article 18 of the ‘SRMR’ (1) were not met.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to grant the applicant a right to be heard.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB did not provide a sufficient statement of reasons.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriately the requirements pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and the ECB failed to consider the suspension of the applicant’s liabilities.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to consider a number of obvious and less burdensome alternatives, including the transfer of the applicant to another shareholder.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without providing any plausible explanation for this.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging the notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/400/22, entitled ‘Administrators (AD 7) and experts (AD 9) in the fields of defence industry and space’ (‘the contested notice of competition’) creates discrimination that is based on language and which is not justified.
initiate the measures of organisation of procedure requested in paragraph 30 [of the application] and a measure aimed at clarifying the questions raised in paragraphs 42, 43 and 59 [of the application];

and, on conclusion of the proceedings,
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Delta Sport Handelskontor v EUIPO — Lego (Building blocks from a toy building set)

(Case T-537/22)

(2022/C 418/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter and L-E. Appel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego A/S (Billund, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 664 368-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2022 in Case R 1524/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO intervenes, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
1.

The first plea in law relates to the fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III, namely the source of the earnings and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2022 — Amazonen-Werke H. Dreyer v EUIPO (Combination of the colours green and orange)

(Case T-618/22)

(2022/C 441/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amazonen-Werke H. Dreyer SE & Co. KG (Hasbergen-Gaste, Germany) (represented by: C. Neuhierl, 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 the figurative mark representing the combination of the colours green and orange — International registration No 1 461 516

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2022 in Case R 2006/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 20 August 2022 — Sberbank of Russia v Commission and SRB

(Case T-526/22)

(2022/C 441/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank of Russia OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Pirovano, M. Moretto and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision SRB/EES/2022/20 on the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Sberbank d.d., issued by the Single Resolution Board on 1 March 2022, together with the Valuation Report 1 issued by the Single Resolution Board on 27 February 2022 and the Valuation Report 2 issued by the Single Resolution Board on 27 or 28 February 2022;

— annul the European Commission decision (EU) 2022/947 of 1 March 2022, endorsing the resolution scheme for Sberbank banka d.d.; (1)

— order the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in the overall evaluation of the conditions related to the resolution scheme and breach of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (2) as well as breach of Article 39 of Directive 2014/59/EU, (3) and infringement of the fundamental right to property and of the freedom to conduct a business.

(1) OJ 2022 L 164, p. 63.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(3) Directive s2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — e-bility (Scooter)

(Case T-646/22)

(2022/C 463/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Piaggio & C. (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: e-bility GmbH (Remagen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design (Scooter) — Community design No 4363588-0001

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2022 in Case R 1663/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the proprietor’s Community design registered under No 4363588-0001 invalid;

— order the defendant and the proprietor to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO and the potential other party to the present proceedings to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Incorrect assessment and unfounded exclusion of decisive evidence provided by the applicant;

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 October 2022 — U. I. Lapp v EUIPO — Labkable Asia (Labkable Solutions for cables)

(Case T-636/22)

(2022/C 451/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: U. I. Lapp GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: R. Ingerl and M. Ringer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Labkable Asia Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong, China)

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 Labkable Solutions for cables — Application for registration No 18 123 696

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2022 in Case R 1894/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision so that the appeal filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal is dismissed;

— alternatively, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;