ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/35

Action brought on 12 October 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch)

(Case T-592/15)

(2015/C 414/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a patch) — Application for registration No 11 293 362

Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2342/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the information and assumptions underlying the prices which formed the range used by the Commission are incompatible with one another. As a result, the applicant contends, the transactions used as a reference are not comparable to the contested transaction.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/48

Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVA)

(Case T-634/15)

(2016/C 016/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frigoríficos Unidos, SA (Riudellots de la Selva, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘FRINSA LA CONSERVA’ — Application for registration No 11 495 728

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2015 in Case R 2382/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

— Priority rights in respect of the term FRINSA and peaceful coexistence on the market and in the registration of the allegedly conflicting marks.

— Well-known character of the mark FRINSA.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/32

Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Orthema Service v OHIM (Gehen wie auf Wolken)

(Case T-620/15)

(2016/C 007/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Orthema Service GmbH (Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Gehen wie auf Wolken’ — Application for registration No 13 121 868

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2015 in Case R 404/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 42, 44, 45 and 47 of the Financial Regulation of 27 March 2003 applicable to the 9th European Development Fund, in so far as the Commission did not exercise the discretion conferred on it by those provisions, and infringement of the principle of proportionality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/69

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Micula/Commission

(Case T-694/15)

(2016/C 038/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioan Micula (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Kadri, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania [Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112)] (OJ 2015 L 232, p. 43);

— alternatively, annul the contested decision insofar as it (a) concerns the applicant, (b) prevents Romania from complying with the award, (c) orders Romania to recover any incompatible aid, (d) orders that the applicant shall be jointly liable to repay aid received by any of the entities identified in Article 2(2) of the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in failing to properly apply Article 351 TFEU and general principles of law to the present case.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question conferred an advantage on the applicant, specifically in incorrectly assessing the time at which the alleged advantage was granted, or alternatively in finding that the payment of damages constitutes an advantage.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question was imputable to the Romanian State.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly assessed the compatibility of the alleged aid measure.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly identified the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, and failed to state reasons for its conclusion, specifically in identifying the natural or legal persons comprising the alleged beneficiary undertaking.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law and exceeded its competence in ordering recovery of the alleged aid.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to observe essential procedural requirements, specifically the right to be heard, Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation 659/1999 (1).

(1) Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 83, p. 1 (as amended).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/71

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Volfas Engelman v OHIM — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (BRAVORO PINTA)

(Case T-700/15)

(2016/C 038/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volfas Engelman AB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rauch Fruchtsäfte GmbH (Rankweil, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BRAVORO PINTA’ — Application for registration No 10 725 381

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2015 in Case R 1649/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow registration of the CTM 1072538 and;

— order OHIM to bear the costs.

Plea in law

— The Board of Appeal erred in identifying the relevant public;

— The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the relevant public will display an average level of attention;

— The Board of Appeal erred by ignoring the significant visual elements of the applied for mark;

— The Board of Appeal erred by finding phonetic similarity between the marks;

— The Board of Appeal erred in basing the decision on finding that the earlier enjoys enhanced distinctiveness for energy drinks in paragraph 42 of the decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/60

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Karanikas v Parliament

(Case T-646/15)

(2016/C 048/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Harry Karanikas (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8594 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(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) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/86

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Groupe Go Sport v OHIM — Design Go (GO SPORT)

(Case T-703/15)

(2016/C 048/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Groupe Go Sport (Sassenage, France) (represented by: G. Arbant and E. Henry-Mayer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Design Go Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘GO SPORT’ — Community trade mark application No 5 144 811

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2015 in Case R 569/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare admissible the Appeal R 569/2015-2;

— return the case to the Board of Appeal;

— order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2015 (‘the decision’) is unlawful on the grounds that it infringes the provisions of EU law restricting the ECB’s competence in matters of prudential supervision to credit institutions only. The plea is divided into four parts. — First part, alleging that the legislation applicable to the ECB’s banking supervision activities strictly restricts its competence to credit institutions and other financial institutions. — Second part, alleging that the Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel (CNCM) is not a credit institution and that the supervision of Crédit Mutuel by the ECB could not take place at the level of the CNCM. — Third part, alleging that the inability of the ECB to exercise prudential supervisory authority over the CNCM is confirmed by the fact, acknowledged by the ECB, that it has no power to impose penalties. — Fourth part, alleging that, since it lacks the power to impose any measures on the CNCM, it is in vain and on a legally erroneous basis that the decision purports to impose corrective measures on the Crédit Mutuel group, which has no legal existence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/68

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — van der Parre v Parliament

(Case T-655/15)

(2016/C 048/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hugo van der Parre (Huizen, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8334 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(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) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
1.

First plea, alleging the unlawfulness of the measures adopted by the Council, in that the Council has failed to fulfil its duty of care and diligence by basing its decisions to include the applicants on vague and imprecise grounds, notwithstanding the case-law requiring it to justify precisely its decisions, and by overlooking its obligation to have a hearing prior to maintaining the applicants in the lists of sanctions. Moreover, the restrictive measures adopted against the applicants are of an unjustified and disproportionate nature and infringe their right to reputation and their right to property.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/35

Action brought on 16 December 2015 — Portuguese Republic v Commission

(Case T-733/15)

(2016/C 068/45)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M. Figueiredo, Agents, assisted by L. Silva Morais, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission decision notified by the Secretariat-General of the Commission in Case SG-Greffe (2015) D/11533 of 12 October 2015; (1)

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Portuguese Republic maintains that the request for payment sent by the Secretariat-General of the European Commission in Case SG-Greffe (2015) D/11533 of 12 October 2015 is flawed by reason of the following and must, therefore, be declared invalid:

1. There is no justification for the contested measure as the Commission has usurped the powers of EU judicature and therefore lacks competence.

2. The measure is based on an artificial division of the effects of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-76/13, thus resulting in infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application.

3. The Commission measure that is contested in this annulment action disregards the principle of res judicata, resulting once again in infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application.

4. The measure is also unlawful on the ground that it disregards the principles of legal certainty, the stability of legal relations and legitimate expectations, recognised by EU law.

5. The measure infringes the principle of the prohibition of double penalties, which precludes obtaining, through a new individual legal act, what could not be obtained previously by means of the judicial decision, resulting in infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application.

(1) Decision of the Director General of the Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology of the European Commission, which required the Portuguese Republic to pay, between 25 June and 21 August 2014, the sum of EUR 580 000 by way of application of the periodic penalty payment which it was ordered go pay by the Court of Justice in Case C-76/13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/34

Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-714/15)

(2016/C 059/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

— as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the fact that he has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to his reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/32

Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Meissen Keramik v OHIM (MEISSEN KERAMIK)

(Case T-776/15)

(2016/C 078/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meißen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MEISSEN KERAMIK’ — Application for registration No 13 100 797

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2015 in Case R 531/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/30

Action brought on 3 December 2015 — BikeWorld v Commission

(Case T-702/15)

(2016/C 068/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BikeWorld GmbH (St. Ingbert, Germany) (represented by: J. Jovy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— suspend the enforcement of the decision vis-à-vis the applicant until the present action has been decided on (Article 278 TFEU).

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2014) 3634 final of 1 October 2014 on German State aid granted to the Nürburgring (SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN)).

In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following:

1. The applicant is no longer identical to the party to the proceedings in which the decision was adopted. No proceedings could therefore be brought against it.

2. The applicant was not a party to the proceedings that led to the adoption of the contested decision. Its right to a fair hearing was therefore not respected.

3. The applicant’s current shareholders are not remotely connected to the original shareholders/owners at the time that the loans were granted.

4. The objective ‘to prevent particular competitive advantages’ sought by the recovery cannot be attained by the decision, for the applicant has not been in competition with anyone and that has been the case since the last loan was granted.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal committed errors of law when rejecting the appellant’s claims for non-material damages both with regard to the decision of reprimand and the decision of termination of contract. — The Civil Service Tribunal committed errors of law regarding the rejection of the claim for non-material prejudice caused by the administrative inquiry, a distortion of evidence, an incomplete examination of facts, a manifest error of assessment, a violation of the notion of proof with respect to the existence of a damage as a condition for non-contractual liability, a misapplication of the principle of the rights of the defence and of Article 86(2) of the EU Staff Regulations, a violation of the duty to state reasons, a violation of the principle of legitimate expectation and a violation of Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC (1). — The Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law regarding the rejection of the claim for non-material prejudice caused by the decision of reprimand, a distortion of evidence, a manifest error of assessment, an incomplete examination of facts, a legal error in the assessment of the prejudice, a violation of the duty to state reasons, and a violation of Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC. — The Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law regarding the rejection of the claim for non-material prejudice caused by the termination decision, a distortion of evidence, an incomplete examination of the facts, a manifest error of assessment, a legal error in the assessment of the prejudice, a violation of the duty to state reasons, a violation of legitimate expectation, and a violation of Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC.