ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
First plea: infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to [their] implementation

The applicant claims that the defendant erred in law in its interpretation and application of Decision C(2014) 4443 final in Case M.7018 together with commitments, inasmuch as it limited, in the case, the so-called ‘non-MNO remedy’ to which Telefónica had committed itself to grant third parties access to 4G services in the wholesale mobile communications market, to third parties with a service provider business model and did not allow Telefónica to grant third parties access to 4G services within the framework of an MVNO business model in accordance with the ‘non-MNO remedy’.
4.

Fourth plea in law: There is a requirement that the individual must be registered with the Swedish Försäkringskassan so that Swedish employer contributions may be levied with regard to the Polish self-employed workers. There has been no examination by the Skatteverket of whether that was the case. The fact that, in accordance with the above, social security contributions are deducted without their having been deposited in respect of a particular person, as is the case in a number of Member States, must be regarded as contrary to EU law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/21

Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Nomacorc v Commission

(Case T-867/16)

(2017/C 046/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nomacorc (Thimister-Clermont, Belgium) (represented by: S. Verschuur, M. Stroungi and L. Mélia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1-4 of the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2016 on State Aid SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) on the Excess Profit Exemption State aid Scheme implemented by Belgium (‘the contested decision’) (1);

— in the alternative, annul Article 2(1) of the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2) by incorrectly qualifying the excess profit rulings as a scheme, thereby committing various manifest errors of law, fact and assessment and also giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment when interpreting and applying the reference system for purposes of assessing whether the excess profit rulings conferred a selective advantage.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by incorrectly establishing that the excess profit rulings conferred a selective advantage, thereby committing various manifest errors of fact and assessment, failing to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ L 260, 2016, p. 61)

(2) 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 L 248, 2015, p. 9)
2.

The second plea in law alleges lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of Article 36(1), in conjunction with Article 2(17), of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline, even though that pipeline is not an ‘interconnector’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/31

Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission

(Case T-851/16)

(2017/C 053/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision C(2016) 6029 of the Commission of 19 September 2016 refusing to grant access to documents requested by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1);

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for conducting the proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine international relations.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the protection of pending court proceedings initiated in cases T-192/16, T-193/16 and T-257/16 and that access to the said documents would undermine the Commission’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice. It is also argued under this plea that the Commission failed to recognize that access to the requested documents is of overriding public interest and that they should for that reason be disclosed.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(3), first and second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the decision-making process and/or by failing to recognize the existence of an overriding public interest, particularly given that the decision-making process in question has been finalised.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, that the Commission misapplied Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not granting at least partial access to the requested documents which it withheld in their entirety.

(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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/44

Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTA ROSSA)

(Case T-911/16)

(2017/C 053/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TESTA ROSSA’ — EU trade mark No 7 070 519

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 68/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul or amend the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and declared the applicant’s mark to be revoked in respect of Classes 7, 11, 20, parts of Classes 21 and 25, Class 28, parts of Class 30, and Classes 34 and 38, and in so far as it confirmed the decision of the Cancellation Division of 17 November 2015 in that regard (however, the part of the contested decision upholding the applicant’s appeal remains unchallenged by the applicant);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

The European Parliament’s discretion, if it has any in the present case, has been exceeded without just cause. In this respect, it should be noted that the rules in question distinguish between, on the one hand, cases in which the disability is based on a certificate from the national authority, as here, in which case the disability is confirmed by the European Parliament’s doctor, and, on the other hand, cases in which the disability is based on a report from the trainee’s doctor. In the latter case, and only in that case, the percentage disability is established by the European Parliament’s doctor.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to adequately explain the reasons for the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made errors during the adoption of the regulation at issue, in the context of the exercise of the power delegated to it by the European Parliament and the Council by Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ L 171, 2007, p. 1), in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. Specifically in question are the following: — infringement of the rules, both primary and secondary, of EU environmental law; — infringement of subsidiary rules of EU law, such as the general principles of standstill, precaution, prevention, rectification at source and polluter-pays; — circumvention of procedural rules, in that the Commission was not entitled to use the regulatory procedure with scrutiny in order to amend an essential aspect of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007; — infringement of essential procedural requirements, in that the regulation at issue did not benefit from the democratic guarantees offered by recourse to the ordinary legislative procedure of joint decision-making by the European Parliament and the Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/38

Action brought on 5 January 2017 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC)

(Case T-7/17)

(2017/C 063/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: John Mills Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jerome Alexander Consulting Corp. (Surfside, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MINERAL MAGIC’ — EU trade mark application No 12 151 379

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 2087/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the procedural legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into five parts. — First part, alleging that the power to make financial decisions concerning Members rests with the Bureau of the European Parliament and not with the Secretary-General. — Second part, alleging that the Bureau of the European Parliament cannot alter the nature and scope of its powers. The Secretary-General has not provided evidence of any lawful delegation of power by the President of the Bureau of the Parliament of the power to adopt and notify the contested measures in order to settle financial issues concerning a Member. — Third part, alleging that the contested measures do not contain a sufficient statement of reasons, and that they are of an arbitrary nature. — Fourth part, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements. — Fifth part, alleging that the Secretary-General of the European Parliament did not personally examine the case-file.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/41

Action brought on 31 January 2017 — CLF v Parliament

(Case T-54/17)

(2017/C 078/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Coalition for Life and Family (CLF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (reference: FINS-2017-16) concerning the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the specified maximum amount and ordering the lodging of a guarantee;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law based on infringement of the Treaties and of the rules of law relating to their implementation.

— The applicant claims that the distinction drawn by the defendant between political parties at European level which have only recently been formed and those which have already been in existence for a significant period of time constitutes an infringement of the general principle of equality in EU law.

— Furthermore, under Article 134(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1) and Article 206(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (2) no guarantee at all may be required in the case of low-value grants.

— In addition, the defendant has no interest in obtaining a guarantee since the applicant is represented by members of national parliaments in a sufficient number of Member States to dispel any fear that it might lose its position as a European political party.

— Moreover, the basis on which the defendant harbours doubts as to whether the applicant would respect the basic values of the European Union has not been indicated in any way whatsoever.

— Finally, the measures are disproportionate, since the applicant is not in a position to lodge a guarantee and its economic survival is threatened by the withdrawal of financial support, which involves a distortion in competition for political ideas. This constitutes a serious breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association (Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/30

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)

(Case T-35/17)

(2017/C 070/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Weber-Stephen Products LLC (Palatine, Illinois, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and A. Jauch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 258 162 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘iGrill’

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2016 in Case R 538/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/16

Action brought on 24 January 2017 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Schöller (Representation of a koala)

(Case T-41/17)

(2017/C 095/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for an EU trade mark: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a koala) — Application for registration No 6 158 463

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2016 in Case R 250/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/23

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Grupo Orenes v EUIPO — Akamon Entertainment Millenium (Bingo VIVA! Slots)

(Case T-63/17)

(2017/C 095/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Orenes, SL (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Akamon Entertainment Millenium, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Bingo VIVA! Slots’ — Application for registration No 13 468 251

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2016 in Case R 453/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 64, 75, 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 read in conjunction, where appropriate, with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation and Rules 50 and 52 of Regulation 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and also the case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting all those provisions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/41

Action brought on 3 February 2017 — RS v Commission

(Case T-73/17)

(2017/C 112/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RS (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that

— The decision of the selection board of the competition of 11 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s application for internal competition COM/02/AST/16 is annulled;

— The European Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered;

— The European Commission is ordered 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 infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.

The applicant thus puts forward a plea of illegality of the notice of the contested internal competition insofar as it lays down a condition for admission to the competition which has the effect of refusing access to it to those temporary agents who have not been in an administrative position of active employment, on leave for military service, on parental or family leave or on secondment during the 12 months preceding the closing date for filing applications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/55

Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Mackevision Medien Design v EUIPO (TO CREATE REALITY)

(Case T-50/17)

(2017/C 104/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mackevision Medien Design GmbH Stuttgart (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: E. Stolz, U. Stelzenmüller and J. Weiser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TO CREATE REALITY’ — Application for registration No 15 098 106

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2016 in Case R 995/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/41

Action brought on 17 February 2017 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-108/17)

(2017/C 121/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the European Commission’s decision, dated 7 December 2016 (‘the Contested Decision’), refusing to review its Decision C(2016) 3549 (‘the Authorisation Decision’) granting to the undertakings VinyLoop Ferrara SpA, Stena Recycling AB, and Plastic Planet srl an authorisation for the use of a chemical known as bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1);

— annul the Authorisation Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs; and

— order any other measure deemed appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the alleged conformity of the application for authorisation of VinyLoop, Stena, and Plastic Planet within the meaning of Article 62 and Article 60(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment under Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 regarding the socio-economic assessment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment under Article 60(4) and 60(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 regarding the analysis of alternatives.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of law and assessment regarding the application of the precautionary principle in the context of the authorisation process under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/45

Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Screen displays and icons)

(Case T-95/17)

(2017/C 112/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: King.com Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeamLava LLC (Redwood Suite, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 2216416-0054

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1/12/2016 in Case R 1947/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law