ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of objectivity and impartiality; harassment; infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; failure to observe the principle that an employer owes a duty of care to his employees; and misuse of power. In that regard, the applicant considers that the lack of sufficient, relevant and well-founded justification for the negative comments or comments with negative connotations in his 2016 staff report leads the applicant to take the view that the report is unfair and is marked by a patent lack of objectivity and impartiality, coming down, rather, to a settling of scores by the final reporting officer, with the help of the first reporting officer. Each element of the assessment was rated lower than in earlier years, particularly 2015, for no reason. It contained nothing positive. Most of the results achieved by the applicant in 2016 were ignored; all the work completed was denied. The report is marked by misuse of power since it had the sole objective of harming the applicant by presenting a truncated version of the reality of his performance, protected, apparently, by the broad discretion given to the reporting officers. This abusive approach, consisting in misusing the appraisal system under the pretext of broad discretion, makes it difficult for the applicant to defend himself since he finds himself apparently faced with value judgments with limited mechanisms for review. Lastly, the defendant failed to comply with its duty of care since the applicant’s interests were manifestly not taken into consideration.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 February 2020 — Sonova v EUIPO — Digitmarket (B-Direct)

(Case T-61/20)

(2020/C 87/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sonova AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Sabellek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Digitmarket — Sistemas de lnformação SA (Maia, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the word mark B-Direct designating the European Union — International registration No 1 342 390 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 in Case R 88/2019-1

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 23 January 2020 – Lotto24 v EUIPO (LOTTO24)

(Case T-38/20)

(2020/C 77/80)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lotto24 AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark LOTTO24 in orange (Pantone 130) and red (Pantone 1807) – Application for registration No 17 996 822

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2019 in Case R 1216/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 7 February 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-76/20)

(2020/C 103/52)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) CCI 2014CZ06RDNP 001 of 29 November 2019 on the suspension of interim payments linked to the Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020 and related to the expenditure incurred in the periods between 16 October 2018 and 31 December 2018 and between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2019 (notified under number C(2019) 8647 final);

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Regulation No 1306/2013’) on the grounds that the Commission incorrectly takes the view that the subsidies to which the expenditure in question relates were provided in breach of national legislation. However, there could not have been any infringement of the national legislation concerned since that legislation does not apply to the type of subsidies which the suspended payments concern.

2. Second plea in law, also alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. Even if the national legislation concerned were to apply to that type of subsidy (quod non), part of the suspended payments relate to projects to which that legislation could not apply ratione temporis.

(1) 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 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and procedural irregularity in the examination of whether horizontal non-coordinated effects on the German ‘market for the supply of cable TV signal transmission to households in multi-dwelling-units (MDU customers)’ (‘MDU market’) significantly impede effective competition.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 February 2020 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)

(Case T-118/20)

(2020/C 129/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of packaging) — Application for Registration No 17 959 421

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2019 in Case R 978/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

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

(Case T-85/20)

(2020/C 114/16)

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 EDUCTOR — European Union trade mark No 12 250 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2019 in Case R 1311/2019-5

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 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-103/20)

(2020/C 129/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (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 12 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 12 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 — Golvabia Innovation v EUIPO (MaxWear)

(Case T-99/20)

(2020/C 129/09)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Golvabia Innovation (Anderstorp, Sweden) (represented by: D. Thorbjörnsson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU word mark MaxWear — Application for registration No 17 953 494

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2019 in Case R 888/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant registration of the trade mark ‘MaxWear’ for the goods sought, and

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Huhtamaki v Commission

(Case T-134/20)

(2020/C 161/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Huhtamaki Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Struys and F. Pili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2019, pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) which rejected the applicant’s confirmatory application of 13 November 2019 for access to documents under that regulation;

— order the European Commission to grant access to the applicant to the non-confidential versions of the document listing the beneficiaries of tax rulings submitted by Luxembourg on 22 December 2014 in response to the Commission’s letter of 19 June 2013, which is referred to in paragraph 4 of the Commission decision of 7 March 2019 opening a formal State aid investigation in case State Aid SA.50400 (2019/NN-2) — Luxembourg — Possible State aid, and the tax rulings issued by the tax administration of Luxembourg referred to by the European Commission at paragraphs 4 and 7 of the said Commission decision of 7 March 2019;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 erred in law in considering that the general presumption of non-disclosure established by the case law is applicable with respect to the applicant’s request for access to the requested documents.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that, assuming that the presumption of non-disclosure would be applicable in the present case (quod non), the absence of any possible harm for the interests protected by Article 4(2), first and third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, would rebut the application of that presumption (first limb of the second plea). In addition, the applicant claims that the application of this presumption would, in any event, be reversed, since there are overriding reasons of public interest justifying disclosure of the requested documents (second limb of the second plea).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the requirements to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and the applicant’s right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(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).
—

annul the decision of the Director General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion contained in the e-mail of 2 July 2019 of the competent HR business correspondent by which the request of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) for the third renewal of the secondment of the applicant was rejected;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 March 2020 — Sam McKnight v EUIPO — Carolina Herrera (COOL GIRL)

(Case T-176/20)

(2020/C 191/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sam McKnight Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (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: Carolina Herrera Ltd (New York, New York, 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 word mark COOL GIRL — Application for registration No 16 681 975

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2020 in Case R 689/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant, and in case the other party 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 19 March 2020 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LIGHTYOGA)

(Case T-153/20)

(2020/C 191/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Bachmann (Bad Grönenbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark LIGHTYOGA — Application for registration No 18 054 218

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2019 in Case R 2346/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 April 2020 — Chanel v EUIPO — Innovative Cosmetic Concepts (INCOCO)

(Case T-196/20)

(2020/C 201/53)

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: Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC (Clifton, New Jersey, United States of America)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark INCOCO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 189 828

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2020 in Case R 194/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 April 2020 — Bavaria Weed v EUIPO (BavariaWeed)

(Case T-178/20)

(2020/C 191/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bavaria Weed GmbH (Herrsching am Ammersee, Germany) (represented by: J. Wolhändler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark — Application for registration No 17 997 323

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 in Case R 1458/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, that is to say, inappropriate measures for enforcement of the annulment judgment of the General Court, and infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 March 2020 — IY v Parliament

(Case T-154/20)

(2020/C 201/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IY (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Principally:

— annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs;

In the alternative:

— find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful;

— accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant takes the view that the dismissal decision, which was based exclusively on the alleged dissolution of the European political group ENF, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

2. Second plea, alleging misuse of powers, in that the European Parliament used its powers to disguise a simple measure changing the name of a European political group as the dissolution of a political group.

3. Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. The applicant takes the view that his right to be heard prior to any dismissal decision has not been respected.

4. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in that the Parliament applied separate procedures to the staff of the political group that had allegedly been dissolved.

5. Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

In the alternative, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the decision dissolving the European political group ENF. The applicant argues that since the dissolution decision was unlawful, as it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers, the dismissal decision — which was based exclusively on that dissolution — is itself, therefore, unlawful and must be annulled.
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), an error of law in the assessment of the concept of harassment and, more specifically, in its assessment with regard to the implementation of the institution’s duty to provide assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and an error of law on the part of the Appointing Authority in rejecting the complaint, before any initiative for an administrative investigation, as regards the significance of the evidence provided in support of his complaint.
Action brought on 23 April 2020 — JU and Others v Council

(Case T-252/20)

(2020/C 215/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: JU, JV, JW, JY, JZ, KA, KB (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, A. von Westernhagen, and D. Harrison, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (1), insofar it deprives them without their consent and without due process of their status as Union citizens and their rights arising therefrom;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that by depriving them, of their status of Union citizenship and the fundamental rights arising therefrom, the Council has breached Articles 20 and 23 TFEU, Article 50 TFEU, Articles 39, 40, 45 and 46 as well as Articles 7 and 19 of the Charter, the principles of proportionality, of equal treatment and of legitimate expectations.

Therefore, the applicants claim that Union Citizenship is the fundamental status of EU nationals. As such, it is personal in nature and, once vested, it does not automatically demise upon the withdrawal of the United Kingdom. The applicants allege that no person may be deprived arbitrarily of their Union citizenship status and the rights flowing thereof.

(1) Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 2020, L 29, p. 1