ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 23 December 2019 – Broadcom/Commission

(Case T-876/19)

(2020/C 61/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Broadcom Inc. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: L. Kjølbye, J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Crocco, lawyers, J. Bourke, and J. Holmes, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision in whole or in part; and

— order the Commission to pay Broadcom’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Decision of 16 October 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom) (notified under document C(2019) 7406 final).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact regarding the Commission finding of a prima facie infringement resulting from (a) the Commission’s wrong interpretation of the terms of the agreements which Broadcom concluded with six customers (‘the Agreements’), (b) the Commission’s conclusion that it was not required to consider the Agreements’ likely effects on competition, (c) the Commission’s inadequate assessment of the prima facie capability of the alleged restrictions to restrict competition, and (d) the Commission’s unfounded conclusion that Broadcom is ‘at first sight’ dominant in one of the relevant markets at issue.

2. Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the Commission’s finding that the interim measures were urgently needed to address a risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition on any of the relevant markets at issue resulting from (a) the Commission’s introduction of an unknown urgency concept which is only justified by the slow pace of its own proceedings contradicting the measures’ inherently exceptional character, (b) the absence of specific factors supporting an urgent need to take action as the Commission limits itself to referring to a series of generic claims, and (c) the Commission’s failure to show any likely damage to competition in any of the relevant markets.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard and breach of confidentiality, insofar as (i) the applicant was not given the opportunity to submit her observations on (a) the content of the statements made by the alleged harassers and the witnesses before the Panel or (b) the other documents that were used by the Panel in its report in order to make recommendations to the President of the Bank and (ii) the Panel adopted its conclusions and shared them with third parties before it gave the applicant the opportunity to submit her observations thereon, i.e. before it allegedly finalised its report, and (iii) in endorsing the report of the Panel, the President of the EIB tainted the contested decision with the same defects. In support of her claim for damages, the applicant argues that: — she has suffered non-material damages that cannot be made good by the annulment of the contested decision; — by rejecting her request for conciliation, illegally, the defendant deprived her of a chance of settling the matter amicably and avoiding proceedings before the General Court.
(a)

Pleas in law concerning the correction resulting from Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003 and AA/2016/015 IT, relating to area-linked aid: 1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (1) with regard to the definition of ‘permanent grassland’ adopted at national level pursuant to [Decree No 6513 of the Italian Minister for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy] of 18 November 2014. 2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, (2) and of Article 12(2) and (6) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro, (3) with regard to the application of a flat rate, despite the actual risk to the EU budget being calculable. 3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with regard to the application of the general clause of ‘disproportionate effort’ used as the basis for applying the flat-rate correction.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 January 2020 – LG Electronics v EUIPO – Staszewski (K7)

(Case T-21/20)

(2020/C 68/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miłosz Staszewski (Wrocław, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark K7 – Application for registration No 14 641 849

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 in Case R 401/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ EST 1929)

(Case T-68/20)

(2020/C 95/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark HAUZ EST 1929 — Application for registration No 17 636 119

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 in Case R 885/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings, including those incurred before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 January 2020 — Rothenberger v EUIPO — Paper Point (ROBOX)

(Case T-49/20)

(2020/C 87/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rothenberger AG (Kelkheim, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paper Point Snc di Daria Fabbroni e Simone Borghini (Arezzo, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ROBOX — Application for registration No 16 462 971

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 in Case R 210/2019-1

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 EUIPO, and, in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 February 2020 — Albert Darboven Holding v EUIPO (WINDSOR-CASTLE)

(Case T-93/20)

(2020/C 114/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Albert Darboven Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ‘WINDSOR-CASTLE’ — Application for registration No 17 881 910

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2019 in Case R 2448/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision to the effect that EU trade mark application No 17 881 910 ‘WINDSOR-CASTLE’ be allowed to proceed to publication also in respect of the goods ‘Coffee, tea and substitutes therefor; baked goods and confectionery’; in the alternative,

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 January 2020 — Chanel v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves)

(Case T-44/20)

(2020/C 103/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Chanel (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J. Passa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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: Application for the EU figurative mark (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves) — Application for registration No 17 248 642

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 in Case R 1041/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it considered that the signs at issue, in the position in which they appear in the application for registration, are not similar;

— annul the decision in so far as it refused as a matter of principle to compare those signs where the sign, covered by the application for registration at issue, was rotated 90 degrees compared to the direction in which it appeared in the application for registration;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Autoridad Portuaria de Bilboa v Commission

(Case T-126/20)

(2020/C 129/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Autoridad Portuaria de Bilboa (Spain) (represented by: D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and X. Codina García-Andrade, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— as its main claim, declare the contested decision null and void;

— in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2019 (C (2018) 8676 final, on the taxation of ports in Spain and against the decisions of the European Commission C (2019) 1765 final of 7 March 2019 and C (2019) 8068 final of 15 November 2019 (‘the contested decisions’).

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five plea(s) in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the tax exemption does not constitute an advantage. In support of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the tax exemption measures which are the subject of the contested decisions do not constitute an economic advantage, while the abolition of that exemption imposes an economic burden on the Port Authority given it continuing obligation to finance investments in the public interest from its resources.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, together with Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the Commission, when examining the existence of an advantage, failed to carry out a complete analysis of the available data. In support of the second plea in law, the applicant claims that the European Commission, when evaluating whether the exemption measures which are the subject of the contested decisions constitute an advantage, failed to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the data supplied during the proceedings by the Port Authority.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the tax exemption does not distort or threaten to distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In support of the third plea in law, the applicant submits that the exemption measures which are the subject of the contested decisions do not improve the competitive position of the Port Authorities and therefore, it is impossible for competition to affect trade between Member States. Therefore, it does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the tax exemption is not selective. In support of the fourth plea in law, the applicant claims that the exemption measures which are the subject of the exemption measures are not selective since they do not constitute an exception to the reference system, therefore such measure do not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2020 — Qx World v EUIPO — Mandelay (SCIO)

(Case T-86/20)

(2020/C 114/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László and A. Cserny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mandelay Kft. (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SCIO — European Union trade mark No 11 191 194

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2019 in Case R 1312/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision in a way to annul the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution;

— as an alternative, annul both the contested decision and the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-110/20)

(2020/C 129/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 4 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 4 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-102/20)

(2020/C 129/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 1 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 1 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed substantive and procedural rules when it ascertained whether the rate agreed in the lease contract was in line with market conditions, infringed the rules governing the burden of proof in its assessment of the existence of state aid and erred in its interpretation of the facts. — The Commission established the existence of state aid based on irrelevant and incomplete data. It ought to have established that the investments in land improvement, the costs for land maintenance and the improvement in the quality of the soil were included in the lease in full. — The Commission erred when it failed to take into account that the alleged economic advantage resulting from the lease contract was in any event eliminated in 2002 at the latest with the privatisation and the merger of the applicant and the owner of its shares.
Action brought on 26 February 2020 — Applia v Commission

(Case T-141/20)

(2020/C 161/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Applia — Home Appliance Europe (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt, L. Salernitano and K. Olsthoorn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the following parts of the contested act: (i) paragraph 3(2)(a) of Annex IX in the part where it states that ‘declared values’ correspond to those ‘values given in the technical documentation’; and (iii) paragraph 3(2)(b) of Annex IX;

— annul Table 8 on ‘Verification tolerances for measured parameters’ of Annex IX in the part where it contains parameters that are included in Annex VI and are not listed in Annex V, namely: ‘E16, E32’ and ‘Eaux’;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2016 (1).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the contested act violates Articles 3, 12 and 16 of the Framework Regulation (2) and the Commission acted ultra vires by introducing inconsistent requirements as regards the technical documentation suppliers have to upload in the database and the verification procedure market surveillance authorities are entitled to carry out.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the contested act infringes the principle of legal certainty and of equality of treatment because it fails to establish a clear and univocal regulatory framework putting the suppliers in the impossibility to determine their duties, as regards the data to be provided in the technical documentation; and the applicable verification procedure to assess the accuracy of the data.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2016 of 11 March 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of refrigerating appliances and repealing Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1060/2010 (OJ 2019 L 315, p. 102).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging inadequate reasoning in the contested decision in so far as the Secretary-General of the European Parliament’s reasoning is ambiguous and in so far as it does not state to what extent the documents produced were not evidence of work done.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 March 2020 — Griba v CPVO (Gala Perathoner)

(Case T-182/20)

(2020/C 191/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft (Terlan, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Community Plant Variety at issue: Apple variety Gala Perathoner — Community Plant Variety Right No. 2009/0353

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 17 January 2020 in Case A 004/2016

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order CPVO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 57(3) of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 April 2020 — JE v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-184/20)

(2020/C 201/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JE (represented by: N. Forwood, QC)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the Decision of the President of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2020 to declare vacant the applicant’s post as Advocate-General and to initiate the procedure for the appointment of a successor;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges that the challenged act should be annulled on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, and infringement of the Treaties and rules of law relation to their application.