ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 August 2020 — Aldi v EUIPO (CUCINA)

(Case T-527/20)

(2020/C 329/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark CUCINA — Application for registration No 18 135 080

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2020 in Case R 463/2020-2

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

annul the decision of 20 June 2019 by which the applicant was excluded from taking part in the tests at the Assessment Centre for Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING)

(Case T-498/20)

(2020/C 339/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Dabas, Hungary) (represented by: P. Jalsovszky, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Forbo Financial Services AG (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING — Application for registration No 17675802

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2019 in Case R 1630/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks STEP and WOOD STEP Laminate Flooring;

— order that the mark at issue be registered by EUIPO;

— order that the opposition proceedings be dismissed by EUIPO;

— order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

— Infringement of article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

— Infringement of article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

— Infringement of Article 26(2) TFEU.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicant takes issue with the contested decision for having automatically excluded her from the officials eligible for promotion by applying an administrative practice that involves the automatic removal from the promotion list of the names of all staff members who are the subject of an investigation or who have received an administrative or disciplinary penalty. According to the applicant, such a practice breaches the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Action brought on 18 August 2020 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-537/20)

(2020/C 359/15)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania, represented by R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninis

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision (1) in so far as it is addressed to the Republic of Lithuania and relates to the ‘Early Retirement’ measure (measure 113);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law. It claims that the Commission, when adopting the contested decision, by which it imposed on Lithuania a correction of EUR 2 186 447,97 on the ground of a weakness of key controls, breached Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, (2) and Articles 34(6) and 35(1) of Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 (3) and failed to comply with the principle of proportionality and the duty to cooperate.

The Commission, when determining the scale of the non-compliance, the nature of the infringement and the financial harm caused to the European Union, applied to Lithuania a flat-rate correction, although ex post checks were carried out by the Lithuanian authorities which were based on criteria which had been improved in the light of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-508/15, Republic of Lithuania v Commission, the results led to an accurate estimation of the actual harm caused to EU funds, and the scale of the non-compliance was so small that the Commission was entirely able to discontinue the investigation.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/859 of 16 June 2020 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) (OJ 2020 L 195, p. 59).

(2) 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).

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of 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, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 October 2020 — Mood Media Netherlands v EUIPO — Tailoradio (MOOD MEDIA)

(Case T-615/20)

(2020/C 390/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Mood Media Netherlands BV (Naarden, Netherlands) (represented by: A-M. Pecoraro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tailoradio Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MOOD MEDIA — European Union trade mark No 5 927 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2020 in Case R 1767/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked the contested mark for the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42;

— dismiss the application for revocation;

— order EUIPO to pay all of the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) Application pursuant to Article 263(4) of the TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 of 24 June 2020 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the provisional countervailing duty imposed on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, and levying the definitive countervailing duty on the registered imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicant;
1.

In the first part, the applicant claims that it complained, in its complaints to the European Commission, of non-notified interventions by the French State in the form of capital invested in a fund managed by a company governed by private law enjoying exclusive and special rights for the purposes of Article 106(1) TFEU. It considers that the Commission failed to comply with the operative parts and principles set out in the judgments of 21 July 2016, Dilly’s Wellnesshotel, C-493/14, EU:C:2016:577, and of 5 March 2019, Eesti Pagar, C-349/17, EU:C:2019:172. According to the applicant, the Commission infringes, first, the principle of ‘lex posterior derogat legi priori’, second, the hierarchy of norms in Article 288 TFEU and, third, the principle of ‘lex specialis derogate legi generali’. Finally, the Commission infringed the applicant’s procedural rights by not opening the formal procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU after a reasonable period of time.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 September 2020 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (UNI-MAX)

(Case T-591/20)

(2020/C 390/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unimax Stationery (Daman, India) (represented by: A. Hempel and C. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mitsubishi Pencil Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark UNI-MAX in orange, red, white and black — European Union trade mark No 14 466 932

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2020 in Case R 371/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, concerning the compensation of the harm assessed, subject to upward or downward revision in the course of the procedure, at EUR 277 371,36, and alleging unlawful conduct and decisions on the part of the Council. This plea is divided into five parts. — First part, alleging unlawful conduct on the part of the administration during and after the administrative inquiry into acts of harassment towards the applicant; — Second part, alleging that the reassignment decision behind the harm for which the applicant is seeking compensation is unlawful; — Third part, alleging that the applicant was not attested in the 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations; — Fourth part, alleging breach of the applicant’s medical data; — Fifth part, alleging that the 2019 appraisal exercise was unlawful.
—

In 2019, in a complaint to the Commission, the applicant referred to the problem of combining aid granted by the Kingdom of Sweden with aid from other EU Member States. The Commission failed to take into account that complaint in its assessment. In addition to the applicant’s complaint, the Commission also failed to take into account the extensive information publicly available concerning this problem. Since the Commission failed to investigate and assess the economic context of the aid granted by the Kingdom of Sweden for biogas in heat generation and for use as motor fuel, the applicant alleges an error of assessment. Therefore, the Commission’s approval decisions are void.
Action brought on 6 November 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-665/20)

(2020/C 443/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 26 April 2020 on State aid SA.56867 COVID 19 –– Germany Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH (1); and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

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 that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU. The liberalisation of air transport has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. By authorising Germany to reserve the aid to Condor, the European Commission ignored the damage caused to such pan-European airlines by the travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 crisis.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 crisis, particularly by considering the prolonged insolvency period of Condor as direct damage to be covered by the aid and by considering that Condor would be sold by June 2022 and could use the proceeds to repay part of the aid.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) European Commission’s decision (EU) of 26 April 2020 on State aid SA.56867 COVID 19 –– Germany Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH (OJ 2020 C 310, p. 5)
Action brought on 30 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-657/20)

(2020/C 433/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: F. Laprévote, V. Blanc, E. Vahida, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 COVID — Recapitalisation of Finnair (1); and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

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 that the Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and incompletely applied the Temporary Framework and committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’) and by finding that Finnair had no significant market power.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalization of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Finland by authorising Finland to reserve aid to Finnair.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) European Commission’s decision (EU) of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 COVID — Recapitalisation of Finnair, OJ 2020 C 310, p. 6
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the commitments fail to explicitly and clearly require the right for a new entrant to obtain, from the outset of the implementation of the commitments, hosting services covering the 700 MHz band, which is essential for the effective operation of a competing mobile network.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules applicable to the appointment of European Public Prosecutors. Those rules are Articles 288, 289, 291 and 296 TFEU, Articles 20, 21 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principles of EU law of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, legality and non-discrimination, Council Regulation (EU) No 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 14(3) and 16(1), (2) and (3) thereof, Article 1 of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1696 of 13 July 2018 on the operating rules of the selection panel provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2018 L 282, p. 8), the operating rules of the selection panel laid down by that implementing decision, in particular Articles VI.2. and VII.2, and the essential procedural requirements. By that plea, the applicant alleges that the contested decision, in so far as it appoints one of the candidates nominated by Belgium to the post of European Public Prosecutor: — in the first place (first part), has been adopted neither on the basis, nor taking account, of the conclusions drawn by the selection panel after examining the applications and hearing the candidates, set out formally in its reasoned opinion, but on the contrary, in particular, on the basis of a different assessment of the merits of those candidates, carried out within the competent preparatory bodies of the Council, and — in the second place (second part), has treated differently the group of candidates nominated by the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland, on the one hand, and the group of candidates nominated by Belgium, Bulgaria and Portugal, on the other hand, the former on the basis of the opinion of the selection panel, as provided for in the regulation, and the latter by the application of a different procedure for assessing the merits of the candidates, not provided for in the regulation, carried out by a body not empowered to do so.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 November 2020 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

(Case T-699/20)

(2021/C 28/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, 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 1st AMERICAN — Application for registration No 8 622 078

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 in Case R 426/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the opposition and allow the European Union trade mark application No 8 622 078 to proceed to registration;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the entire costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the duty to state reasons;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 December 2020 — Škoda Investement v EUIPO — Škoda Auto (Device of arrow with wing)

(Case T-712/20)

(2021/C 35/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Škoda Investement a.s. (Plzeň, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Škoda Auto a.s. (Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic)

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 figurative mark (Representation of a device of arrow with wing) — Application for registration No 17 991 861

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2020 in Case R 284/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 9 December 2019 concerning Opposition No B003083007 to the full extent;

— remit the case to the Opposition Division for further examination with respect to all goods and services applied for;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
—

annul the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1193 of 2 July 2020 on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to railway passenger transport in Sweden (1) in so far as it declares that the Utilities Directive shall continue to apply to procurement contracts intended to enable activities related to the provision of commercial railway passenger services in Sweden;
Action brought on 18 December 2020 — UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission

(Case T-742/20)

(2021/C 53/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: UPL Europe Ltd (Warrington Cheshire, United Kingdom) and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance mancozeb, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (1) (‘the Contested Act’); and,

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that an essential procedural requirement has been infringed by a failure to comply with the procedure in Articles 11 to 14 of Regulation 844/2012. (2)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure has been further vitiated by an infringement of the applicants’ rights of defence.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure was vitiated by an infringement of the principle of sound and good administration, and the defendant’s failure to act with impartiality in the course of the procedure.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure has been vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that the defendant took the irrelevant facts of the proposed Reprotoxic 1B classification and the intrinsic properties of the substance’s metabolite ETU into account.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure has been vitiated by an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectation.

(1) OJ 2020 L 423, p. 50.

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 of 18 September 2012 setting out the provisions necessary for the implementation of the renewal procedure for active substances, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 2012 L 252, p. 26).