ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/20

Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v OHIM

(Case T-553/12)

2013/C 55/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible;

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 October 2012 in Case R 1709/2011-2;

— alter that decision;

— order the General Court of the European Union to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BATEAUX-MOUCHES’ in respect of services in Classes 39, 41 and 43 — Application for registration No 5 666 631

Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/22

Action brought on 18 December 2012 — PAN Europe en Stichting Natuur en Milieu v Commission

(Case T-574/12)

2013/C 55/40

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) and Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Martens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 16 October 2012 whereby the claims of the applicants for review of Commission Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto (OJ 2008 L 58, p. 1) were declared admissible but unfounded;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 11, 168, 169 and 191 TFEU, Articles 7, 35 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 1, 14(2), 22, 23, 24 and 25 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, (1) Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2) and of Articles 4 and 10 of Directive No 91/414/EEC. (3)

— The applicants dispute that the maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set at the lowest achievable level consistent with good agricultural practice.

— The applicants claim that the dossiers were not assessed in a thorough manner. The defendant takes the view in particular that Articles 22 to 25 of Regulation (EC) 396/2005 make no provision whatsoever for a procedure for an entire assessment of a complete dossier in the process for the initial setting of temporary MRLs.

— Furthermore, the cumulative exposure of consumers was not taken into account.

— Lastly, a large number of temporary MRLs exceeds health limits.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2005 L 70, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

(3) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).
1.

First ground of appeal: the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding inadmissible certain pleas set out in the application, thereby acting in breach of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. — The appellant submits in this regard that the Civil Service Tribunal held certain of the pleas set out in the application to be out of time, in that it found, in breach of the principle of pro actione, that in order to calculate, in relation to the contested act, the time allowed for bringing an action, there was no need to consider the appellant’s administrative complaint submitted in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/23

Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Marouf v Council

(Case T-569/12)

2013/C 63/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Soulieman Marouf (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, T. Eicke, QC, A. Sander, Barrister, and R. Franklin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (as amended) (‘The Council Decision’), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

— Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (as amended) and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 944/2012 of 15 October 2012 and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (‘The Council Regulations’), in so far as they relate to the applicant;

— Annul the decision of the Council contained in its letter of 30 November 2012 (Ref No SGS12/013373) ‘that the applicant should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities that appear in Annexes I and II to Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP and in Annex II and IIa to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 …’ (‘the Decision’);

— Order the European Union to compensate the applicant; and,

— Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First, the applicant contends that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against him and/or manifest error of assessment on the basis that there is no rational connection between him and the individuals sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union namely those who are responsible for the violent repression of the civilian population in Syria.

Second, the applicant claims that there is an absence of legal basis for Article 24 of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP seeking to prevent his entry into, or transit through, the Member States on the basis of the applicant’s rights as a citizen of the EU under Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC.

Third, that the Council decision and the Council Regulations amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of human Rights including the applicant’s right to human dignity, right to a good administration, right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, right to be presumed innocent and rights of defence, right to respect for his private and family life, home and communications, freedom to conduct a business, and his right to property.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment, and breached Article 94 of the Financial Regulation (1) by not excluding CLL-Allingua from the tender in circumstances where CLL-Allingua’s tender was assisted with by one of its employee who had worked in the relevant Commission Unit and on an evaluation committee for a closely comparable tender procedure in which both Communicaid and CLL-Allingua had participated, as well as during the preparatory stages of the tender, thus breaching his duty of loyalty to the EU and giving CLL-Allingua an unfair advantage over Communicaid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/19

Action brought on 3 January 2013 — MasterCard International/OHIM — Nehra (surfpin)

(Case T-13/13)

2013/C 86/31

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: N. Bolter and C. Sawdy, solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sheetal Nehra (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision under Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR;

— Uphold the applicant’s opposition filed against the respondent’s mark in its entirety;

— In the alternative, uphold the applicant’s opposition in respect of such services for which it is found that a likelihood of confusion exists and/or for such services where it is determined there exists a risk of the application mark taking unfair advantage of, or being detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the applicant’s mark; and

— Order the respondent to pay the cost of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in blue, black and white containing the word element ‘surfpin’ and a device of three overlapping circles for services in classes 36 — Community trade mark application No 8 368 862

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks in different colours containing a device of overlapping circles and some of them the word elements ‘MasterCard Worldwide’ or ‘MasterCard’ — Community trade mark registration No 5 198 585, Community trade mark registration No 5 198 494, UK trade mark registration No 2 425 471, UK trade mark registration No 2 429 669, Community trade mark registration No 5 646 261, Community trade mark registration No 761 221, Community trade mark registration No 5 646 492 and Community trade mark registration No 5 646 609 for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (4) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/19

Appeal brought on 25 March 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11, BO v Commission

(Case T-174/13 P)

2013/C 164/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: BO (Amman, Jordan)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11 BO v Commission;

— dismiss the action brought by BO in Case F-27/11, ordering him to pay the costs of those proceedings;

— decide that each of the parties are to bear their own costs relating to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 19 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of disease and of point 2.5 of Chapter 12, entitled ‘Transport costs’, of Title II of the Commission Decision of 2 July 2007 laying down general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the CST failed to have regard to the strict nature of the exclusion of reimbursement of transport costs laid down by that latter provision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/22

Action brought on 31 January 2013 — Vans/OHIM (Line which slants and curves)

(Case T-53/13)

2013/C 101/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, United Sates) (represented by: M. Hirsch, 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 contested decision in its entirety;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing a device of a line which slants and curves for goods in classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 10 263 838

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/24

Action brought on 28 January 2013 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA)

(Case T-46/13)

2013/C 86/40

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sabores de Navarra, AIE (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and O. González Fernández, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frutas Solano, SA (Calahorra, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 November 2012 in Cases R 2542/2011-2 and R 2550/2011-2;

— consequently, apply the decision of 11 October 2011 adopted by the Cancellation Division of OHIM in annulment proceedings No 4633 C; that decision declared invalid in part Community Trade Mark No 5042346 ‘KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA’ (word mark) in respect of Class 29 for ‘Preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; all originating in Navarra’ and in respect of Class 30 for ‘Pastry and confectionery, honey, treacle; sauces (condiments); spices’;

— uphold the applicant’s submissions requiring the relevant Cancellation Division of OHIM to declare invalid once again the goods set out in the previous point;

— order OHIM to pay the costs associated with the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 33 — Registered Community Trade Mark No 5 042 346

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Frutas Solano, SA

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Figurative mark with the word element ‘Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 33, 39 and 42

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal brought by Frutas Solano, SA upheld in part and partial annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division, dismissal of the applicant’s action

Pleas in law:

— Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of that regulation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/25

Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Anapurna/OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA)

(Case T-71/13)

2013/C 101/54

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Anapurna GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annapurna SpA (Prato, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the contested decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHMI of 3 December 2012, inasmuch as it upheld the registration of Community trademark No 001368166 ‘ANNAPURNA’, and did not declare it null and void, for the goods ‘bags’ (class 18), ‘bed covers and bed linen’ (class 24) and ‘articles of clothing, headgear, slippers’ (class 25);

— Order the intervening party to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred during the course of the appeal proceedings;

— Request the defendant to produce the evidence of use (‘Exhibits’) submitted by the intervening party within the framework of the nullity proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘ANNAPURNA’ for goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 368 166

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part and revoked the Community trade mark for further goods

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/20

Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-109/11, Lebedef v Commission

(Case T-117/13 P)

2013/C 147/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the CST of 12 December 2012 in Case F-109/11 Lebedef v Commission seeking the annulment of the appellant’s appraisal report for the period 1.1.2009 — 31.12.2009 and, more specifically, the part of the report drafted by EUROSTAT for the same period;

— uphold the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance;

— alternatively, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

— make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law, of which the first, second, third and six are essentially the same as or similar to those relied on in Case T-116/13 P Lebedef v Commission.

The fourth plea in law alleges an error of law in that, according to the appellant, the CST concluded that the report covering his activities in a professional or trade union organisation (OSP report) which should appear only as a document attached to the report concerning the appellant’s duties at the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) (paragraphs 68 to 70 of the order under appeal).

The fifth plea in law alleges an error of law in that the appellant claims that the CST held that the appellant wished to challenge his appraisal reports prior to 2009 and the Commission decision not to promote him (paragraphs 74 and 75 of the order under appeal).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/21

Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

(Case T-106/13)

2013/C 141/38

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonimi Emporiki Etairia Parokhis Ipiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that the company’s exclusion by the European Commission from participation in the ARTreat programme constitutes a breach of the Commission’s contractual obligations in the light of the principles of proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations, and order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of three hundred and forty-three thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight euro and eighty-eight cent (EUR 343 828,88) in respect of the payments which are owed by the Commission for the ARTreat project, together with interest from the date on which the present action is lodged;

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of eighty-nine thousand nine hundred and thirty-three euro (EUR 89 933,16) as compensation for the financial damage and the harm to its professional reputation that the applicant has suffered because of misuse of the Commission’s powers and breach of confidentiality, together with compensatory interest from 14 June 2012 until delivery of judgment in the present case and interest for late payment from delivery of judgment in the present case until settlement in full;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant brings together two actions.

First, an action, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, in respect of liability of the Commission under Contract FP7-224297 concerning the carrying out of the project ‘Multi-level patient-specific artery and artherogenesis model for outcome prediction, decision support treatment, and virtual hand-on training (ARTreat)’. In particular, the applicant submits that, although it duly performed its contractual obligations in full, the Commission, without being so entitled and in breach of the contract and of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, suspended payment to it.

Second, an action to establish non-contractual liability of the Commission, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. In particular, the applicant submits that the Commission, by reason of its unlawful conduct, has harmed the applicant’s professional reputation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/23

Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Jinko Solar and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T-142/13)

2013/C 123/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jinko Solar Co. Ltd (Shangrao, China); Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co. Ltd (Haining City, China); Jiangxi Jinko Photovoltaic Materials Co. Ltd (Shangrao); Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd (Shangrao, China); and Zhejiang Jinko Trading Co. Ltd (Haining City) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1), insofar as it was applied to the applicants,

— Annul the Commission's Decision of 3 January 2013 by which it refused to consider the applicants' market economy treatment claims; and

— Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law alleging that Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants in the 3 January 2013 Decision, and the 3 January 2013 Decision stating that the Commission would not consider the applicants' market economy treatment claims, frustrate the legitimate expectations of the applicants and are applied retroactively to the detriment of the applicants without valid justifications. As a result, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants by the 3 January 2013 Decision, and the 3 January 2013 Decision, manifestly violate the basic principles of legal certainty and good faith.