ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/61

Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)

(Case T-102/15)

(2015/C 138/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimum Mark (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Representation of the colours blue and silver — Community trade mark registration No 9 4 17 668

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 2036/2013-1

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 the Board of Appeal of OHIM, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 4, 7(1)(a) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/21

Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Abertis Infraestructuras and Abertis Telecom Satélites v Commission

(Case T-158/15)

(2015/C 178/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Abertis Infraestructuras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) and Abertis Telecom Satélites, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, M. Maragall de Gispert, M. Santa María Fernández, J. Panero Rivas, and A. Balcells Cartagena, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application;

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12 TRLIS adopted by the Spanish administration must be regarded as State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;

— annul Article 4.1 of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the alleged aid scheme as described in Article 1;

— annul parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as they require the Kingdom of Spain to recover the amounts considered by the Commission to be State aid;

— in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain in Article 4.2 of the contested decision in the same terms as in the First and Second Decisions; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-826/14 Spain v Commission and T-12/15 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission.

The applicants claim, in particular, that the Commission erred in law in the legal classification of the measure as State aid, in the identification of the beneficiary of the measure and in the characterisation of the administrative interpretation as State aid distinct from that examined in the Commission’s decisions, and that it breached the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of estoppel and of legal certainty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/34

Action brought on 23 March 2015 — hyphen v OHIM — Skylotec

(Case T-146/15)

(2015/C 171/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: hyphen GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Skylotec GmbH (Neuwied, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a polygon) — Community trade mark No 2 255 537

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 March 2015 in Case R 1506/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/22

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Jaber v Council

(Case T-154/15)

(2015/C 190/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aiman Jaber (Lattakia, 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-653/11;

— 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.
—

declare, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU, that the Commission’s decision of 19 January 2015 in the proceedings relating to State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) (for EUR 4 9 51 838) is entirely null and void in so far as it states that the sums awarded by way of compensation for public service obligations within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, granted under Article 11 of that regulation in respect of tariff obligations in the Local Public Transport sector, could be deemed a non-notified measure constituting State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU which is incompatible with the internal market;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the CST in that it held that the time-limit for bringing proceedings under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations started to run from receipt of the proposal for the bonus loading of the annuities and not from its acceptance by the member of staff.
—

The applicants claim that TenderNed’s activities are of an economic character and do not belong to the state prerogative because those services do not emanate from obligations provided by the EU procurement Directives, because TenderNed does not act in the capacity of a public authority, because the activities of TenderNed are not necessary to ensure compliance with the EU procurement Directives, because ensuring compliance with the obligations of the EU Procurement Directives can be achieved by other means and because the Dutch procurement law allows commercial initiatives on the market of e-procurement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/23

Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zimara)

(Case T-238/15)

(2015/C 228/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Zimara’ — Application for registration No 9 782 764

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2015 in Case R 636/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/37

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-141/15)

(2015/C 213/62)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 53) in so far as it excludes expenditure of a total of EUR 2 1 23 199,04incurred by the Czech Republic;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 (1) and the principle of legal certainty and hence the protection of legitimate expectations — The applicant submits in this connection that in the contested decision the European Commission imposed a financial correction on the ground of ineligible expenditure for measures which had been agreed by the procedure laid down in Article 5 of Council Regulation No 479/2008, and there was therefore a breach of that provision and of the principle of legal certainty and hence the protection of legitimate expectations.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Articles 11 and 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — The applicant submits on this point that there was a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Articles 11 and 16 of Commission Regulation No 885/2006 and Article 31 of Council Regulation No 1290/2005 (3), since the European Commission additionally included the financial years 2010 to 2012 in investigations VT/VI/2009/004/CZ and VT/VI/2009/101/CZ.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2008 L 148, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/44

Appeal brought on 8 June 2015 by Ángel Coedo Suárez against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-38/14, Coedo Suárez v Council

(Case T-297/15 P)

(2015/C 245/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible;

— set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 in Coedo Suárez v Council (F-38/14, EU:F:2015:25);

— grant the application for annulment made by the appellant at first instance;

— order the Council to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and evidence, and an error of law, in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the appointing authority had not committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the appellant’s ill health did not constitute an extenuating circumstance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/43

Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Redpur v OHIM — Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur)

(Case T-227/15)

(2015/C 236/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Redpur GmbH (Hayingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Schiller, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Redwell Manufaktur GmbH (Hartberg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Redpur’ — Application No 10 934 305

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 678/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

— allow Community trade mark application No 10 934 305 to proceed to registration in its entirety or, in the alternative, remit the case to the Board of Appeal;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

— order Redwell Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/21

Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-317/15)

(2015/C 254/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the notice of competition EPSO/AD/302/15 — Administrators (AD 5) in the field of Audit;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are those raised in Case T-17/15 Italian Republic v Commission (OJ 2015 C 81, p. 27).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to fulfil the relevant criterion for listing, namely that the applicant provides financial or logistical support to the Government of Iran. The financial support allegation was rejected by the General Court in NITC v Council. The applicant provides no financial benefit to the Government of Iran, and the Government of Iran derives no financial benefit from the applicant, through its shareholders, or otherwise. As held in NITC v Council, indirect financial support is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion. The logistical support allegation is no more than a recharacteristation of allegations already made in NITC v Council. In any event, there is not the requisite causal link between the activities of the applicant and nuclear proliferation, and any support provided by the applicant is at most indirect logistical support.
declare null and void the Commission Decision of 10 March 2015 [SG-Registry (2015) D/3003/11.3.2015] for the recovery from the applicant of the entire amount of seven hundred and sixteen thousand, three hundred and thirty four euros and five cents (EUR 716334,05), with interest;·and

order the defendant to pay the applicants legal costs and general legal expenses.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/35

Action brought on 17 June 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (TRIPLE BONUS)

(Case T-318/15)

(2015/C 262/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, 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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE BONUS’ — Application for registration No 12 013 629

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2015 in Case R 1648/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/46

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

(Case T-340/15)

(2015/C 279/58)

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 12 411 112

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2247/2014-5

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
Case T-350/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Perry Ellis International Group v OHIM — CG (P)

Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Perry Ellis International Group v OHIM — CG (P)

(Case T-350/15)

Parties

Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CG verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘P’ — Application for registration No 10 889 723

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 2441/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/79

Action brought on 30 June 2015 — CG v OHIM — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER)

(Case T-349/15)

(2015/C 294/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CG verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Körber, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited (Nassau, Bahamas)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘P PRO PLAYER’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 89 764

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 2439/2014-4

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 279/36

Action brought on 28 May 2015 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-269/15)

(2015/C 279/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

— order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of Novartis.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 1977 final of 18 March 2015 granting a marketing authorisation to Pari Pharma for the medicinal product for human use ‘Vantobra — tobramycine’.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the orphan market exclusivity rights of Novartis Europharm Ltd. for its product TOBI Podhaler pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 (1) because the period of orphan market exclusivity has not yet expired while the conditions for granting a derogation of market exclusivity pursuant to Article 8(3) of the same Regulation are not fulfilled.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission is also unlawful because it does not contain a statement of reasons as required by Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 (2).

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/66

Action brought on 17 July 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Società Cooperativa Agricola Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)

(Case T-391/15)

(2015/C 302/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Società Cooperativa Agricola Cantina Sociale Tollo (Tollo, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALDIANO’ — Application No 10 942 274

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2015 in Case R 1612/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/78

Action brought on 29 June 2015 — Bach Flower Remedies v OHIM — Durapharma (RESCUE)

(Case T-337/15)

(2015/C 294/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (Wimbledon, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Durapharma ApS (Stenstrup, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘RESCUE’ — Community trade mark registration No 6 473 755

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 2551/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law