ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of Articles 101 and 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) read in conjunction with Article 98 thereof, as a result of the application of the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable by offsetting, despite the fact that those amounts had ceased to exist. The applicant submits that the Commission had no legal basis for adopting the contested decisions given that, as a result of the settlement agreement concluded between the Polish and Czech governments, the waiver by both parties of any claims, and the removal of Case C-121/21 (2) from the register of the Court of Justice, the effects of the order of 20 September 2021 had retroactively ceased to exist.
Action brought on 24 May 2022 — Fridman v Council

(Case T-304/22)

(2022/C 257/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mikhail Fridman (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2022/337 (1) of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 (2) of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— 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.

1. First plea in law, alleging an error in assessment. The applicant claims, first, that none of the evidence put forward by the Council meets the requirements of the European case-law on the standard and quality of proof and, second, that none of the assertions in the Council’s statement of reasons is well-established and none therefore fits into criteria (a) to (d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, in the version then in force, to which explicit reference was made by the Council in its statement of reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging illegality of that criterion on account of a twofold infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims, first, that the criterion relied on by the Council is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective pursued and, second, that it was possible to employ less-restrictive measures.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the lack of a legal basis, on the ground that no sufficient link has been established between the category of individuals targeted by that criterion and the Russian Federation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessment, on the ground that the Council does not show that the applicant is a prominent or leading businessman or that he is involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022, L 58, p. 1).
Action brought on 13 May 2022 — CCCME and Others v Commission

(Case T-263/22)

(2022/C 257/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (Beijing, China) and 8 others (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 of 16 February 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), in so far as it relates to the CCCME, the individual companies, and the members concerned; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration in its determination of the normal value.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to ensure a fair comparison in its dumping determination in violation of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 18 of the basic Regulation and Article 6.8 and Annex II of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in its use of facts available for labour.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation in its determination of the dumping margin for the non-sampled cooperating exporting producers.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to make an objective examination of injury and causation based on positive evidence in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), and 3(6), in conjunction with Article 4(1), of the basic Regulation.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s undercutting analysis is in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), and 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to make a fair comparison in its assessment of the price effects in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(6), and 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to make an objective examination based on positive evidence with respect to the injury indicators, in violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 6(7), Articles 19(1), (2), and (3) and Articles 20(2) and 20(4) of the basic Regulation, and the rights of defence.

(1) OJ 2022, L 36, p. 1.
Action brought on 6 June 2022 — Khan v Council

(Case T-333/22)

(2022/C 276/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: German Khan (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 (1) of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 (2) of 15 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of the actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— 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.

1. First plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis for the criterion of ‘leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the illegal annexation of Crimea and destabilisation of Ukraine’, on the grounds that no sufficient ties have been established between the category of individuals covered by this criterion and the Russian Federation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the criterion of ‘leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the illegal annexation of Crimea and destabilisation of Ukraine’ is unlawful due to two breaches of the principle of proportionality. The applicant is of the view, first, that the criterion relied by the Council is manifestly inappropriate in the light of the objective pursued and secondly that there was a possibility of having recourse to less restrictive measures.

3. Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant claims that, first, none of the evidence relied on by the Council meets the requirements of EU case-law regarding the standard and quality of evidence and secondly, that none of the assertions of the Council’s reasoning are established and therefore cannot be characterised by the criteria under (d) and (g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP in the version then in force.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87 I, p. 44).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of the actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87 I, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 May 2022 — celotec v EUIPO — Decotec Printing (DECOTEC)

(Case T-308/22)

(2022/C 266/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: celotec GmbH & Co. KG (Sendenhorst, Germany) (represented by: E. Warnke and J. Römelt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Decotec Printing, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

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 DECOTEC — European Union trade mark No 10 948 032

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2022 in Case R 1025/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

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

First plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of Article 77(1) and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant claims, in support of the unlawfulness of the provisions referred to above, that an official or member of the temporary staff should be able to make an informed decision on the transfer of his or her national pension rights to the European system when he or she draws his or her pension, not before. However, the application of the current rule entails a difference in treatment compared with that of an official who either has spent his or her entire career within the European system or took up his or her duties within the EU institutions without transferring pension rights previously acquired within the pension system of a Member State. The applicant therefore takes the view that there is an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination which leads to the unlawfulness of the contested provisions.
—

annul the decision of 18 February 2022 rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the selection board for competition PE/AD/260/2021 of 20 December 2021 not to admit her to the oral tests and, in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 20 December 2021;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 June 2022 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (KARR)

(Case T-352/22)

(2022/C 294/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: De Dietrich Process Systems GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: M. Körner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Koch-Glitsch LP (Wichita, Kansas, United States)

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 KARR — European Union trade mark No 3 790 359

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2022 in Case R 1105/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the European Union trade mark proprietor’s appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO dated 29 April 2021 (Case No 42 121 C) declaring European Union trade mark No 3 790 359 (‘KARR’) invalid in its entirety;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), read in conjunction with 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 4 July 2022 — BPCE and Others v SRB

(Case T-393/22)

(2022/C 311/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and the 45 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-391/22, Société générale and Others v SRB.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation No 806/2014 with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
b.

order the Commission to pay interest on the amount requested at paragraph (a) above for the period from 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the Commission), or alternatively from 28 April 2022 (the date of Intel’s First Interest Application), or from 6 July 2022 (the date of the present action) or, in the further alternative, from the date of judgment in the present action, up to the date on which the Commission actually pays the amount in pursuance of a judgment upholding the present action, at the interest rate applied by the ECB to refinancing operations increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court;
Action brought on 2 July 2022 — Mndoiants v Council

(Case T-390/22)

(2022/C 311/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Serguey Mndoiants (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: F. Bélot and P. Tkhor, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 (1) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it includes the name of the applicant in the list set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 of 17 March 2014;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it includes the name of the applicant in the list set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/269 of 17 March 2014;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the information provided by the Council does not enable him to defend himself, in that, first, the information provided by the Council cannot constitute justification for the restrictive measures at issue given the insufficient nature of that information and, second, the Council has failed to set out individual, specific and concrete reasons such as to give the applicant sufficient information on the merits of the act.

2. Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, in that, first, the evidence relied on by the Council in order to include the applicant on the list is materially incorrect in its entirety and, second, the Council has failed to establish either that the applicant is a prominent business person that he is influential, or that he is active in economic sectors that provide a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The applicant takes the view that the sanctions imposed on him are discriminatory with regard to him, and disproportionate to the objectives pursued by those measures.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental individual rights, including the right to property and the right to respect for private and family life, home and communications. By including the applicant on the list, the Council acted in disregard of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).
Action brought on 4 July 2022 — PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T-412/22)

(2022/C 326/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision, dated 27 April 2022, to reject the applicant’s request for internal review, regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2068, (1) insofar as it postpones the expiry of the approval period of dimoxystrobin;

— order the Commission to bear 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, in principal order, alleging that the contested decision must be annulled because it is based on an unlawful interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 (‘the PPP Regulation’). (2) — It is argued that the contested decision is based on a reading of Article 17 of the PPP Regulation which is not compatible with: — the substantial requirements laid down in Articles 4, 5 and 21 of and point 3.6.5. of Annex II to the PPP Regulation and contained in Articles 9, 11, 168 and 191 TFEU and in Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; — the expediency requirements contained in Articles 7, 9, 12, 14 and 15 of the PPP Regulation.

2. Second plea in law, in subsidiary order, alleging that Article 17 of the PPP Regulation must be disapplied, according to Article 277 TFEU, because it is contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 9, 11, 168 and 191 TFEU, and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. — It is argued that, if the Court were to take the view that the contested decision (and the Commission Implementing Regulation) is based on a sound reading of Article 17 of the PPP Regulation, this legislative provision should be set aside for the purpose of the present proceedings, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, because it would be contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 9, 11, 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter. Accordingly, Article 17 could not serve as a proper legal justification for the contested decision, which must therefore be annulled.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2068 of 25 November 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances benfluralin, dimoxystrobin, fluazinam, flutolanil, mecoprop-P, mepiquat, metiram, oxamyl and pyraclostrobin (OJ 2021 L 421, p. 25).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
—

declare the action to be admissible and well founded in its entirety and declare all pleas in law set out therein to be well founded;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 July 2022 — Sky v EUIPO — Skyliners (SKYLINERS)

(Case T-454/22)

(2022/C 340/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Zalewska-Orabona, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Skyliners GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SKYLINERS — Application for registration No 14 570 915

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2022 in Case R 0006/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, in case the other party joins the proceedings, the intervener, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(5) and 8(4) in conjunction with Article 41(1)(a) and (c) and Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 in conjunction with Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;