ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO – Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)

(Case T-664/19)

(2019/C 383/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA – European Union trade mark No 6 295 638

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 in Joined Cases R 1655/2018-4 and R 1723/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it revokes the EUTM No. 6295638 JUVEDERM ULTRA for the contested goods;

— order EUIPO and Dermavita Co. Ltd. to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 September 2019 – Eugene Perma France v EUIPO – SPI Investments Group (NATURANOVE)

(Case T-602/19)

(2019/C 363/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eugene Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SPI Investments Group, SL (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

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 NATURANOVE – Application for registration No 17 007 949

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 in Case R 2161/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and ordered the Applicant to bear the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings, fixed to the amount of EUR 1 170;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, relating to ‘Misinterpretation and, accordingly infringement, of the obligation to ensure respect for the right to sound administration and the right for proceedings to be concluded within a reasonable time — Failure to state adequate reasons’ — The applicant submits in that regard that, in the light of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and of Article 6 of the ECHR, the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for considering, and in any case wrongly considered, that it was not required to assess the reasonableness of the duration of the proceedings, asking the Court to make that assessment.
—

In this regard the applicants claim that the European Commission prevented the recapitalisation of Banca [delle] Marche by the F.I.T.D. on the grounds that the measure would constitute State aid. However, the F.I.T.D is a private undertaking which uses private resources and is not subject to the control of any public authority, as indeed the General Court recently found in the [joined cases Italy and Others v Commission (T-98/16, T-196/16 and T-198/16, EU:T:2019:167)]. It would have been, therefore, a perfectly lawful rescue according to market rules. The infringement is also shown to be serious and manifest in the light of the clear regulatory framework in that area, the established case-law of the European Courts and the lack of discretion on the part of the European Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 September 2019 — Brands Up v EUIPO (Credit24)

(Case T-651/19)

(2019/C 399/102)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Brands Up OÜ (Tallin, Estonia) (represented by: M. Welin, 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 containing the word element ‘Credit24’ — Application for registration No 17 941 316

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2019 in Case R 465/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— register the European Union trade mark No 17 941 316;

— order that the word ‘doubtful’ be deleted from the EUIPO Examiner’s decision of 20 December 2018, p. 1;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 October 2019 – Euroapotheca v EUIPO – General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)

(Case T-686/19)

(2019/C 399/119)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Euroapotheca UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė, and E. Saukalas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark GNC LIVE WELL – European Union trade mark No 940 981

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 in Case R 2189/2018-5

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
—

where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in relation to the present case, order the European Parliament to submit the opinions of the Legal Service of the European Parliament which, regardless of the exact date, are believed to have been issued on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018 and in any event before the adoption of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2018/C 466/02, Official Journal, 28 December 2018, C 466/8);
Action brought on 11 October 2019 –Falqui v Parliament

(Case T-695/19)

(2019/C 406/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Enrico Falqui (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested notes and order the European Parliament to pay him the sums unduly withheld while the proceedings are pending.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Note D309417 of 8 July 2019 and Note D (2019) 14406 of 11 April 2019 of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance, concerning the redetermination of the pension which the applicant receives as a former Member of the European Parliament and, where relevant, against the opinion of the legal service of the European Parliament of 11 January 2019.

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-347/19, Falqui v Parliament.
Action brought on 4 November 2019 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-734/19)

(2019/C 432/78)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should find that the action against the contested act and the annexes thereto has been lodged in time, declare the action admissible and, having regard to the pleas in law relied upon, annul the contested act of the President of the European Parliament, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the President of the European Parliament, Mr Sassoli, of 22 August 2019, whereby he declared himself not to be competent and, therefore, rejected the petition of 4 July 2019 made to the President with a view to triggering, in accordance with Rule 8 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the urgent action procedure in order to assert Mr Junqueras i Vies’ parliamentary immunity.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, in that the President of the European Parliament declared himself not to be competent to deal with the petition for protection of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, submitted on 4 July 2019, when the case raises serious legal issues regarding compliance with EU law, and especially the protection of the immunity of Members of the European Parliament. That decision was adopted without the case being dealt with and on the sole basis of the communication from the Junta Electoral Central de España (Central Electoral Commission, Spain) declaring Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies’ seat vacant.

In that connection, the applicant claims that:

— The oath or promise to uphold the Spanish constitution is a substantive requirement under domestic electoral law which infringes the provisions of the European Electoral Act 1976.

— In the absence of implementation of the mechanism for substituting candidates in a given seat, the declaration as to the vacancy of the seat, made by the Junta Electoral Central de España (Central Electoral Commission) on a ground other than those laid down in the European Electoral Act 1976, infringes Article 13 of that Electoral Act and the Decision on the composition of the European Parliament.

— The decision is unjustified and arbitrary, since both the Criminal Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo de España (Supreme Court, Spain) and the General Court of the European Union have identified, with regard to the facts and situation described, serious issues of EU law, and given that the reference for a preliminary ruling currently pending in Case C-502/19 has been made and declared admissible.
Action brought on 5 November 2019 – Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission

(Case T-744/19)

(2020/C 10/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd (Couva, Trinidad and Tobago) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America, in as far as it relates to the applicant;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, namely that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting and underselling margins violates Articles 1(1), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) to 3(8) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the case law of the General Court and of the WTO as well as the principle of fair comparison by failing to compare, for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling margins calculation, the prices of imports with the price of the like product produced by the Union industry at the same appropriate level of trade.

In essence, the Applicant submits, firstly, that the determination of the price of imported urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Trinidad and Tobago for the purpose of the calculation of the undercutting and underselling margins on the basis of the application by analogy of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation violates Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, and that by using this constructed price for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling margins determination, the Commission failed to compare prices at the same appropriate level of trade in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) to 3(8) and, consequently, of Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the case law of the Court and of the WTO as well as the principle of fair comparison.
Action brought on 17 October 2019 – Sthree and Sthree Overseas Holdings v Commission

(Case T-710/19)

(2020/C 10/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sthree plc (London, United Kingdom) and Sthree Overseas Holdings Ltd (London) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision C(2019) 2526 Final of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption in so far as it applies to the applicants or either of them;

— order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) regime itself.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions laid down in the said Chapter 9 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, (1) which was not applicable ratione temporis.

(1) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the parties’ procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU, in that the circumstances in which the contested decision was adopted and the content thereof demonstrate that the Commission was objectively faced with doubts that should have resulted in the formal investigation procedure being opened.
Action brought on 15 November 2019 — Set v Commission

(Case T-794/19)

(2020/C 10/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Set SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: N. Aicardi, T. Ferrario, and M. Vasari, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision by which the Commission decided not to raise objections to the ‘Modification of the Italian capacity mechanism: Introduction of environmental requirements’, State Aid SA.53821 (2019/N);

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) laying down detailed rules for the application of the formal investigation procedure, in the context of the assessment, by the Commission, of the compatibility of the notified measure with the internal market.

— In this regard the applicant highlights the issues connected to and the effects resulting from the opening up of the market-wide capacity mechanism to new, unauthorised production units, in respect of which the Commission failed to carry out an adequate assessment, noting that further aspects of the rules were amended in respect of which the Commission nonetheless either failed to carry out an assessment or carried out an incorrect assessment.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in ruling that taxing a UK company on profits of foreign subsidiaries “to the extent attributable to domestic assets and activities” does not pose a restriction to the freedom of establishment and that the contested measure was not needed to ensure compliance with the Treaty freedoms.

In support of its application (in the alternative) for annulment of Article 2 of the contested decision, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:
Second plea in law: Lack of competence of the Commission due to an infringement of the principle of subsidiarity

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission is not competent to carry out the investigation into the applicants or to adopt the contested decision. Given that the Bundeskartellamt carried out in-depth investigations and the national proceedings permit a final judgment, it is not apparent why it would have been inappropriate for the Bundeskartellamt to bring an end to the investigation in the present case or why the Commission is in a better position to carry out the contested investigative measure.
Action brought on 19 November 2019 — etc-gaming and Casino-Equipment v Commission

(Case T-803/19)

(2020/C 45/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: etc-gaming GmbH (Vienna, Austria) and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH (Vienna) (represented by: A. Schuster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to pay compensation for the losses suffered in the amount of EUR 110 836 927,73 which it unlawfully and through its own fault caused to the applicants’ assets by failing to provide, as required, a legal remedy within the meaning of Articles 6(1) and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);

— alternatively, order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, on the merits of the case, to pay compensation for the losses suffered, and/or which will arise in the future, which it unlawfully and through its own fault caused to the applicants’ assets by failing to provide, as required, a legal remedy within the meaning of Articles 6(1) and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter;

— order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following plea in law:

The failure of the European Union to give effect to the requirements under the ECHR and the Charter to provide an effective legal remedy unlawfully and improperly caused the applicants to suffer a loss of at least EUR 110 836 927,73. This loss consists of the fact that the applicants, in the absence of a legal remedy which would have made possible a review of the failure by the national courts, which were under a corresponding duty to do so, to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice, were legally not in a position to ensure that effect would be given to EU law and thereby to ensure the inapplicability, as a result of the primacy of EU law, of the national tax provisions of the Law on games of chance resulting in obligations to pay tax corresponding to several times the amount of the turnover achieved during the same period.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises et Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)

(Case T-839/19)

(2020/C 45/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0002

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1006/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;

— to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3, R 1010/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;

— order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;