ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/14

Action brought on 18 July 2016 — Basicmed Enterprises a.o. v Council a.o.

(Case T-379/16)

(2016/C 383/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Basicmed Enterprises Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) and 19 others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, K. Kakoulli, P. Panayides and C. Pericleous, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup, European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 16 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court; and

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:

— find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

— determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants; and

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU and the ECB, for damage suffered by the diminution of the applicants’ deposits as a result of the bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus adopted by the defendants.

The applicants consider that the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions. The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme is a serious violation and in support of their action, they rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging violation of the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

2. Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.

3. Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
—

The applicant based its declaration concerning the size of the undertaking on information derived from, inter alia, the ECHA and on national information. The size of the undertaking had to be determined in accordance with the Law on the freedom of economic activity of 2 July 2004. Under that legislation undertakings are not defined according to their shareholding structure. The ECHA failed to provide sufficient information on the registration rules and charged the fees without it being possible for the error to be corrected.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/47

Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-627/16)

(2016/C 392/61)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2016) 3753) (‘the contested decision’) in so far as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in connection with the single area payment (SAPS) in a total amount of EUR 84 272,83, in so far as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in connection with investment in the wine sector in a total amount of EUR 636 516,20, and in so far as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in connection with cross-compliance conditions in a total amount of EUR 29 485 612,55;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies in relation to the single area payment scheme (SAPS) on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 52(1) 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. The Commission decided to exclude expenditure from EU financing, although there had been no breach of EU or national law.

In relation to investment in the wine sector, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The Commission decided to exclude expenditure from EU financing, although there had been no breach of EU or national law.

In relation to cross-compliance conditions, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

— The first plea in law alleges breach of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The Commission decided to exclude expenditure from EU financing, although there had been no breach of EU or national law.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 5) and of Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12) (‘the contested regulations’). In particular, the adoption of the contested regulations is vitiated by a number of irregularities, inter alia, infringement of essential procedural requirements, of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 10 of Annex XI to the applicable Staff Regulations prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), infringement of Articles 10, 11 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of acquired rights and proportionality, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation, and of the rules on social dialogue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/28

Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)

(Case T-675/16)

(2016/C 410/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU trade mark ‘mycard2go’ — Application No 14 303 416

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 282/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the defendant for continuation of the registration procedure concerning EU trade mark No 014303416;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 428/18

Action brought on 19 September 2016 — Malta v Commission

(Case T-653/16)

(2016/C 428/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar, agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision dated 13 July 2016, delivered pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) relating to a request for access to documents registered under the reference GESTDEM 2015/5711;

— order the Commission 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 a failure to abide by the procedural time-limits stipulated in Regulation No 1049/2001;

2. Second plea in law, alleging the wrongful treatment of a request for access to documents as a fresh application;

3. Third plea in law, alleging the unlawful extension of the scope of the application for access to documents at the confirmatory stage;

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging the inclusion by the defendant in the contested decision of documents for release to a third party whose disclosure would breach Article 113 of Regulation No 1224/2009. (2)

(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.

(2) Council Regulation No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/56

Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Athletic Club v Commission

(Case T-679/16)

(2016/C 419/73)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Athletic Club (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: E. Lucas Murillo de la Cueva and J. Luís Carrasco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs, in so far as it affects Athletic Club;

— annul Articles 4 and 5 of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs, in so far as they order the recovery of the aid allegedly granted to Athletic Club and the elimination of the corporate tax regime for non-profit entities under which Athletic Club has been taxed;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs. As regards the applicant, that aid consists in the tax advantage which it had allegedly obtained during the relevant period, because it was taxed as a non-profit association and therefore did not pay the standard corporate tax rate.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU — By this plea in law, the applicant submits that in the geographic frame of reference (Vizcaya), the measure examined in the decision cannot be considered to be selective, since all the football clubs are non-profit entities subject to the same corporate tax regime and rate.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU — By this plea in law, the applicant submits that the difference in tax treatment between non-profit entities and limited liability companies is justified by the fundamental differences between those two types of entity.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU — By this plea in law, the applicant submits that the measure examined in the decision neither distorts competition nor affects trade between Member States.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108 TFEU and Articles 1(b)(i), 17, 18 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1). — By this plea in law, the applicant submits that if the measure examined in the decision is held to constitute state aid, it should, in any event, be given the treatment provided for existing aid.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Murka v EUIPO (SCATTER SLOTS)

(Case T-704/16)

(2016/C 454/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Murka Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Santos Rodriguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SCATTER SLOTS’ — Application for registration No 14 590 889

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2016 in Case R 471/2016-1

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 EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009;
Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*1) v Commission

(Case T-695/16 P)

(2016/C 441/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A.-C. Simon, F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: U (*1) and European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*1) v Commission;

— as regards the proceedings at first instance, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal took the view that the state of proceedings permitted it to give final judgment, dismiss the action as unfounded and order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;

— as regards the appeal proceedings, order the parties to bear their own costs relating to those proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

1. First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law, infringement of the obligation to state reasons, and infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita, in relation to paragraphs 53 to 56, 60 and 75 to 78 of the judgment under appeal.

2. Second ground of appeal, alleging several errors of law in the interpretation of Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in relation to paragraphs 31, 57 to 60, and 61 to the first sentence of paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal.

3. Third ground of appeal, alleging several errors of law and infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in relation to paragraphs 65 and 67 to 79 of the judgment under appeal.

(*1) Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/26

Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (Representation of an angular figure)

(Case T-709/16)

(2016/C 462/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: La Patrouille (Pantin, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alpha Industries, Inc. (Chantilly, Virginia, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark — Application for registration No 11 778 727

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2016 in Case R 2332/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision inasmuch as it ‘[annulled] the contested decision and [rejected] the opposition insofar as it concerns registration of the mark at issue for the following goods: ‘school bags; briefcases; school satchels’ in Class 18 and ‘[rejected] the remainder of the appeal’ and authorise registration of the mark applied for in respect of all the goods;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Lack of likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue;
—

annul the decision of 31 August 2016 of the European Central Bank (ECB) adopted pursuant to Decision ECB/2004/3 not to provide full access to the ECB decision of 1 August 2014 which suspended Banco Espírito Santo S.A.’s Eurosystem monetary policy counterparty status and obliged it fully to repay its debt to the Eurosystem and refusing full access to related documents or decisions of ECB bodies;
1.

First plea in law, alleging serious infringement relating to Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2013, Article 2(28) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320), the Council’s forecasts of 17 December 2013, and Article 1(821) of the 2016 Stability Law. — In support of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that a self-employed individual, even if not registered with a professional association, is equivalent to an undertaking, irrespective of legal form, for the purposes of access to the structural funds. Self-employed individuals may access the funds for scientific research and cultural and industrial innovation. The applicant claims that the contested decision did not take into account the fact that the 2016 Stability Law, which implements a 2013 European recommendation, definitively stated that self-employed individuals are equivalent to undertakings. The applicant must be regarded as a suitable applicant since he is a VAT-registered self-employed individual.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/23

Action brought on 31 October 2016 — Alessandro La Rocca v EUIPO (Take your time Pay After)

(Case T-755/16)

(2016/C 475/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro La Rocca (Anzio, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani, J. Graffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Take your time Pay After’ — Application for registration No 14 396 031

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2016 in Case R 406/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— rule that there has been an infringement and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— rule that there has been an infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and, accordingly;

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 406/2016-1, made on 4 August 2016 and notified on 31 August 2016;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs and fees incurred in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging several errors of law on the part of the ECB. The applicant claims that, even if the ECB had been competent to adopt the contested decision, that decision would not be valid as it is vitiated by several errors of law in relation to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 575/2013’) and the intentions of the EU legislature by reason of the fact that the ECB misinterpreted the legislation in question and thus adopted a decision which: — is contrary to the objectives and purpose of the rules on leverage ratio since it disregards not only the objective of leverage-ratio legislation itself but also the legislature’s intention as expressed in Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013; — alters the basic provision by taking into consideration two additional conditions that are not included in the provision at issue; — renders Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013 ineffective.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/45

Action brought on 08 November 2016 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIBION)

(Case T-802/16)

(2017/C 022/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

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: EU word mark ‘FEMIBION’ — EU trade mark No 898 924

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 in Case R 1608/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part and revoke the EUTM for ‘pharmaceutical preparations for immune system support, for menopause, for menstruation, for treatment and management of pregnancy, for the prevention, treatment and management of stress, for the prevention, treatment and management of stress ill-balanced or deficient nutrition’;

— order the EUTM proprietor to pay the Applicant’s costs on the appeal and with regard to the proceedings at the EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/53

Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE)

(Case T-806/16)

(2017/C 014/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Agricola J.M., SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: J. Clos Creus, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘CLOS DE LA TORRE’ — Application for registration No 13 029 533

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 in Case R 2099/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 7 August 2015, which upheld the opposition against all the products in class 33: ‘alcoholic beverages (except beers)’ by refusing the Community trade mark for all the contested goods;

— alter earlier decisions by granting registration of the mark to the applicant for all the goods in class 33;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of this action.

Pleas in law