ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

consequently, uphold the forms of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly, — annul the decisions to distribute awards to the appellants pursuant to the new performance system resulting from the decision of 14 December 2010 of the Board of Directors and the decisions of 9 November 2010 and 16 November 2011 of the Management Committee, the individual award decision being contained in the April 2012 notice, brought to the attention of the persons concerned on 22 April 2012 at the earliest; — accordingly, — order the defendant to pay the difference in remuneration resulting from the decision of the Board of Directors of 14 December 2010 and the decisions of 9 November 2010 and 16 November 2011 and that paid in application of the preceding bonus system, with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 22 April 2012 until full payment, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points; — order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and on a provisional basis, at 1,5 % of the monthly remuneration of each applicant; — if necessary, if the defendant does not produce them of its own accord, request the defendant to produce the following documents by way of measures of organisation of procedure: — the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the EIB of 13 December 2011; — the drafts drawn up by the Department of Human Resources dated 22 June 2011 (RH/P&O/2011-119), 20 October 2011 (RH/P&O/2011-74) and 25 January 2012; — order the defendant to pay all the costs;
2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of fundamental rights In the context of this plea in law, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to property and infringement of the right to exercise an economic activity. He also complains that the restrictive measures imposed are disproportionate. Lastly, he submits that there has been infringement of his rights of the defence.
—

In its decision, the Commission made a correction in relation to the operational shortcomings attributable to the Agenzia della Regione Basilicata per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (Basilicata Region Agricultural Payments Agency) (ARBEA), the paying agency whose recognition was withdrawn through the administration’s decision of 12 May 2010 with effect from 16 October 2010, the date when ARBEA’s competences were taken over by AGEA. The applicant criticises the Commission’s way of proceeding — that is, its extending to 2010 the correction previously applied to the financial years 2007-2009 on the assumption that the risks previously established were still present and adopting the same percentage — and also criticises its application of that correction to the period between the date on which recognition was withdrawn and the date on which AGEA took over ARBEA’s duties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/26

Action brought on 7 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)

(Case T-322/14)

2014/C 235/36

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 February 2014 in Case R 951/2013-1;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile.de’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 8 8 38 609

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Rezon OOD

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: national figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the case is referred back to the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 57 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of the rules on abuse of law in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/25

Action brought on 21 May 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM — The Swatch Group Management Services (HAPPY TIME)

(Case T-352/14)

2014/C 245/33

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant): The Smiley Company SPRL (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: I. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Swatch Group Management Services AG (Biel, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 in Case R 1497/2013-1;

— Dismiss the opposition by amendment of the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HAPPY TIME’ for goods and services in Classes 14 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 06 813

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Swatch Group Management Services AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration protected with effect in the European Union of the word mark ‘HAPPY HOURS’ for services in Classes 35 and 37

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it finds in recital 116 the gross capital relief effect of the measures to be DKK 375 million, which needed to be remunerated, and the transfer value to be DKK 254 million above the real economic value, which needed to be clawed back, and in the second paragraph of Article 1 and the Term Sheet, commitment 6, makes the approval contingent on this.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, the applicant, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/41

Action brought on 31 May 2014 — Yavorskaya v Council and Others

(Case T-405/14)

2014/C 261/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elena Yavorskaya (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Grisay, C. Hartman and Y.G. Georgiades, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB) and Eurogroup, represented by the Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Declare the present action, based on non-contractual liability under Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, admissible;

— Declare the action well founded on the ground that the measures imposed by the different institutions of the European Union on the Republic of Cyprus as regards the attachment of bank accounts constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of the fundamental principles of EU law, conferring rights on individuals, which constitutes a breach of Article 340 TFEU;

— Hold that the actions of the European Union constitute serious and clear misconduct which has had the consequence that the applicant has suffered harm estimated, without prejudice, at the sum of EUR 3 2 99 855,45, subject to reduction or increase during the proceedings, in particular having regard to interest and costs which, if appropriate, are due;

— Order the European Union to pay the sums set out above;

— Order the European Union, in addition, 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 non-contractual liability of the European Union and, more exactly, an infringement of the right of property and the principle of non-discrimination.

The measures imposed by the European Union on the Republic of Cyprus led to the applicant’s accounts with the Laïki Bank being blocked, without any fair compensation having been paid to her in advance.

The European Union thus manifestly and unreasonably infringed the applicant’s right of property and the principle of non-discrimination, since only deposits of less than EUR 1 00 000 made with the Laïki Bank were safeguarded under the European measures imposed on the Cypriot authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/36

Action brought on 26 May 2014 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council

(Case T-373/14)

2014/C 261/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

— join the present proceedings with the case T-156/13 in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

— order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging that the statement of grounds was insufficient and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.

The applicant argues that although it is a subsidiary of the listed company National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), the Council has not substantiated that this entails any economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the objective pursued by the contested measures.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging obvious errors in the appreciation of the facts. The applicant submits that no investigation was initiated against him in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and/or their illegal transfer outside Ukraine before or at the moment of the adoption of the contested measures. Moreover, the applicant alleges that even if the alleged investigation did exist, it would not have any factual or legal basis and would be exclusively politically motivated. Finally, the applicant claims that the reasons given by the Council for listing the applicant do not meet the conditions set by the contested measures and are not supported by any evidence.
—

partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they concern the applicant and, more specifically, order: — to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Regulation N. 208/2014 of 5 March 2014; — to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/42

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CHOICE)

(Case T-431/14)

2014/C 282/55

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2014 in Case R 2019/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CHOICE’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 69 163

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/46

Action brought on 3 June 2014 — Universal Music v OHIM — Yello Strom (Yellow Lounge)

(Case T-379/14)

2014/C 292/56

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Universal Music GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yello Strom GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2014 in Case R 274/2013-4; and

— order the defendant, and where appropriate the other party to the proceedings, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Universal Music GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Yellow Lounge’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 0 33 421

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Yello Strom GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Yello’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 7, 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42 and 45

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in law, resulting from an erroneous interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation and/or a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant for the calculation of a constructed export price (including adjustments to export price) pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation, and in the consequential finding that a full deduction for all SG&A costs and profit of RFA International from the constructed export price of the CHEMK Group was warranted. To the extent that the Commission may have relied in the above findings on the rejection of the applicants’ claim of existence of a single economic entity, the applicants contend that such rejection is also vitiated by an error in law and/or a manifest error of assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/52

Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)

(Case T-526/14)

2014/C 303/61

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 April 2014 in Case R 1523/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Matratzen Concord’ for goods in Classes 10, 20, 24 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 59 404

Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Classes 20 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 41(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of the judgment of 29 June 2011 in Angioi v Commission, F-7/07, ECR-SC, EU:F:2011:97, inasmuch as this is a restrictive, obsolete line of case-law inapplicable to non-paper-based competitions.

In the alternative, if the judgment in Angioi v Commission should be found to be applicable, the applicant considers that he satisfies the criteria established by that case-law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/67

Action brought on 18 June 2014 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-462/14)

2014/C 315/112

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested Commission decision of 8 April 2014;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 8 April 2014 (Ares(2014)1102834) dismissing as inadmissible the applicant’s request for internal review regarding Commission Decision 2013/687/EU of 26 November 2013 on the notification by the Hellenic Republic of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging illegality of Article 10 read in conjunction with Articles 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 (1). The applicant submits that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention as the provisions applied by the Commission — Article 10 read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — are incompatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. The illegality of these provisions in Regulation No 1367/2006 should have led the Commission to declare the request for internal review admissible.

2. Second plea in law, alleging in the alternative that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of its obligation to act as Convention compliant as possible. The applicant submits that the Commission should have interpreted Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006 and in particular the words ‘administrative act’ in that provision in conformity with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention and should have left aside the definition of ‘administrative act’ as laid down in Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006, which is according to the applicant too restrictive.

3. Third plea in law, alleging more alternatively that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 by holding that Commission Decision 2013/687/EU did not qualify as an act of individual scope.

(1) 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/56

Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHIM — Vicente Gandía Pla (ILLIRIA)

(Case T-541/14)

2014/C 303/67

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl (Salice Salentino, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vicente Gandía Pla SA (Chiva, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2014 given in Case R 917/2013-4;

— Award the applicant the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘ILLIRIA’ for ‘wines’ in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 99 033

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No. 8 2 99 653

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulled the contested decision and upheld the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.