ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 26 January 2021 — QD v Parliament

(Case T-41/21)

(2021/C 88/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: QD (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in its entirety the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 11 November 2020, communicated to the applicant on 16 November 2020, which definitively confirmed the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 May 2020, which, in turn, confirmed the communication of 11 July 2019, adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the European Parliament, concerning the fixing of the applicant’s retirement pension rights;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings seeks the annulment, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, of the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 11 November 2020, communicated to the applicant on 16 November 2020, which definitively confirmed the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 May 2020, which, in turn, confirmed the communication of 11 July 2019, adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the European Parliament, concerning the fixing of the applicant’s retirement pension rights following the adoption of Deliberazione n. 14/2018 dell’Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati italiana (Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the protection of the right to property, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment. In addition, the applicant claims that the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision, which claims to implement at EU level the new decision of the Italian Chamber of Deputies without providing any reasonable justification, is manifestly unreasonable.

2. Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. That provision is a transitional measure; such measures are, by definition, rules bringing an expired system to a close, their purpose being to protect the legal situations governed by the rules that preceded them.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Daw v EUIPO (Muresko)

(Case T-32/21)

(2021/C 88/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Muresko — EU trade mark No 15 465 719

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 in Case R 1686/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to enter, in respect of the applicant’s EU trade mark No 15 465 719 Muresko, the seniority of the national marks PL No 108 756 (date of registration: 4 April 1996) and DE No 981 144 (day of registration: 24 February 1978);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-110/21)

(2021/C 128/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that regulation;

— 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-103/21, Boshab v Council.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the fines imposed on Teva and Cephalon should be annulled, or that, at the very least, the fine imposed on Teva should be significantly reduced.
Action brought on 25 January 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-52/21)

(2021/C 128/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of the defendant of 16 November 2020 to refuse access to certain requested documents related to fisheries controls pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006; (2)

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that, as a result of the failure to address to the applicant an express decision regarding its request for access, within the time-limits for processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3) thereof. It is argued that this implied refusal decision was unmotivated and the applicant therefore submits that it should be annulled because of the Commission’s breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, Article 41(2), third indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 296 TFEU.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) 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).
—

together with, and so far as necessary, annul the decision of 23 October 2020 (notified to the applicant on 30 October 2020) rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 June 2020 and
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Commission Decision on middle management staff C (2008) 5028/2 and the decision of the Secretary General of EEAS of 15 November 2019 on the exercise and subdelegation of powers entrusted to the Appointing Authority and to the AECE ADMIN (2019) 31, and manifest error of assessment.
Action brought on 2 March 2021 — CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case T-130/21)

(2021/C 148/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox Group SpA (Bibbiano, Italy), Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Cucchiara and E. Rocchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the fine imposed on the applicants; or

— in the alternative, reduce the amount of that fine; and, in any event

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against European Commission Decision C(2020) 8969 final of 17 December 2020, in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, which concerns infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23(2) 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 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1). — The applicants claim in that regard that the value taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the 10 % limit laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (CE) No 1/2003 is clearly wrong, since that figure includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in determining the size of the penalty. — The applicants claim in that regard that the fine imposed on them is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. The mechanical application of the 10 % limit for each of the alleged infringements is contrary to the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, as well as the principles that fines should be specific to the individual and progressive.
Action brought on 19 March 2021 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-151/21)

(2021/C 189/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 27 January 2021 refusing to grant the applicant’s requested access to Commission documents through the issuing of copies of all Commission communications a) with the company BioNTech SE, b) with the Federal Chancellery, Germany, regarding the company BioNTech SE and its products, c) with the German Federal Minister for Health regarding the purchasing of vaccines to combat the coronavirus pandemic, from 1 April 2020 and in particular as regards the quantity of vaccines offered by BioNTech and their delivery times;

— 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 three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law: The applicant claims that he is entitled to access the European Commission documents at issue in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)

2. Second plea in law: The applicant submits that Article 4(2), point 1, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. Disclosure of the information would not undermine the commercial interests of a natural or legal person. According to the applicant, the requested information does not contain any trade secrets within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943. (2)

3. Third plea in law: The applicant claims that Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. According to the applicant, only the current decision-making process is protected by that provision. The object of the applicant’s request for access to documents is, however, documentation concerning the defendant’s negotiations on vaccine deliveries. The applicant claims that those negotiations have already been completed. There is, moreover, an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the information at issue, since the EU’s vaccine procurement has been discussed and reported for weeks at European level.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ 2016 L 157, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 March 2021 — Vetpharma Animal Health v EUIPO — Deltavit (DELTATIC)

(Case T-146/21)

(2021/C 182/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vetpharma Animal Health, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deltavit SAS (Janzé, France)

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 DELTATIC — Application for registration No 17 806 241

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 in Case R 776/2020-5

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 to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(2) in connection with Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X)

(Case T-198/21)

(2021/C 217/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ancor Group GmbH (Igersheim, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth and W. Berlit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cody’s Drinks International GmbH (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU work mark CODE-X — Application for registration No 17 893 826

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2021 in Case R 208/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 November 2018 rejecting the opposition brought against EU trade mark application No 17 893 826;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 March 2021 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission

(Case T-158/21)

(2021/C 217/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Citizens’ Committee of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (Cîrţa, Romania) (represented by: T. Hieber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Communication from the Commission of 14 January 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’, C(2021)171 final;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its obligation to state reasons pursuant Article 296(2) TFEU;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяйка)

(Case T-185/21)

(2021/C 242/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peter Schuju (Borchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Хозяйка — EU trade mark No 12 344 529

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 in Case R 2717/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for revocation No 42 860 C (EU trade mark No 12 344 529) with award of costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 April 2021 — Agora Invest v EUIPO — Transportes Maquinaria y Obras (TRAMOSA)

(Case T-219/21)

(2021/C 228/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Agora Invest, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Transportes Maquinaria y Obras, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark TRAMOSA — Application for registration No 17 236 531

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2021 in Case R 566/2020-5

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject opposition B 3 029 199 to EU trade mark application No 17 236 531;

— grant EU trade mark No 17 236 531 TRAMOSA (with graphic representation);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the Commission to examine the concentration is invalid because the request for a referral submitted by the French competition authority was out of time and/or the decision is contrary to legal certainty and good administration by reason of delays by the Commission. In particular: — The Commission erred in law in the interpretation and application of the notion of ‘made known’ contained in Article 22(1) of the Merger Regulation for the purposes of calculating the date on which the 15 working day period commenced and wrongly failed to find that the request was out time, such that the Commission had no power to take the decision. — Further or alternatively, if and insofar it was the invitation letter under Article 22(5) of the Merger Regulation by which the concentration was ‘made known’ to the French authorities (and/or other Member States), the delay by the Commission in issuing the invitation letter was contrary to the fundamental principle of legal certainty and the obligation to act within a reasonable time under the principle of good administration.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to provide sufficient reasons, in breach of Article 170(3) of the Financial Regulation. In that regard, the applicants claim that an examination of the reasons provided concerning the qualities of the tender submitted by the applicants and the characteristics and advantages of the tender of the highest-ranked tenderer does not show any correlation between the assessment and the rating awarded, and that it is therefore not possible to understand why the applicants’ tender is rated lower than the tender of the highest-ranked tenderer.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 May 2021 — Hrebenyuk v EUIPO (Shape of a stand-up collar)

(Case T-252/21)

(2021/C 263/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Anna Hrebenyuk (Griesheim, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Ruhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Registration of a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a stand-up collar) — Application No 17 975 716

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2021 in Case R 1902/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision as well as the first-instance decision of the Office of 3 March 2020;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

Order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to redress the damage sustained by Air Canada because of the Commission’s failure to pay the default interest and compound interest owing pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in order to give effect to the judgment of 16 December 2015, Air Canada v Commission (Case T-9/11) and therefore pay the following amounts, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU: — an amount equal to the default interest owing, i.e. interest on the sum of EUR 21 037 500,00 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, for the period between 10 February 2011 and 8 February 2016, less the guaranteed return already paid of EUR 468 540,80 which results in an amount of EUR 4 264 896,70 or, failing that, at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; — an amount equal to the interest owing on the sum of EUR 4 264 896,70 at the default rate, for the period between 9 February 2016 and the date of the Interest Application (4 February 2021) at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, which results in an amount of EUR 958 550,14 (or, failing that, at the interest rate and for the time period that the General Court considers appropriate); and — an amount equal to the compound interest owing on the amount of unpaid interest on the sum owing at the date of the Interest Application (EUR 4 264 896,70 + EUR 958 550,14: EUR 5 223 446,84 or any other amount that the Court considers appropriate) for the period between 5 February 2021 and the date on which the Commission reimburses Air Canada the amounts of interest owing, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate that the General Court considers appropriate.