ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/20

Action brought on 22 August 2016 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO (Representation of a triangle)

(Case T-470/16)

(2016/C 383/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (Wardenburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a triangle) — Application No 14 167 654

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 in case R 2565/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations which the Commission committed by acknowledging the implementation of a public development programme to adjust entitlements in accordance with Article 41(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16), but then proceeding, a posteriori, to refuse funding for the expenditure based on the adjustment of entitlements that had been proposed to it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/19

Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Flir Systems Trading Belgium v Commission

(Case T-467/16)

(2016/C 383/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Flir Systems Trading Belgium (Meer, Belgium) (represented by: N. Reypens, C. Docclo and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— join the present case and Case T-131/16 on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure and of the judgment;

— admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application;

— annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision (1);

— in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as it does not lay down transitional measures;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the legal acts that provide for the alleged Sate aid and an error of law in the interpretation of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 (2).

2. Second plea in law, alleging an error of fact in the description of the reference system, a manifest error of assessment in the analysis of it and an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

3. Third plea in law, alleging an error in the assessment of an economic advantage and an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessing the selectivity necessary to characterise the disputed regime as state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and an error of assessment in analysing the mechanisms of the disputed regime.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the analysis of the justification of the conditions for the application of the disputed regime.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment when evaluating the alleged advantage derived from the disputed regime and a lack of precision in the examination of the disputed regime.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the taxpayers’ legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

(1) Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption implemented by Belgium [state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN)]

(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9)
—

The Commission has not established the applicability of the international relations exception. It has notably not established how disclosure of purely legal documents that contain reflections on EU law is in itself capable of revealing strategic objectives pursued by the European Union during negotiations or weakens the Commission’s negotiating position. The Commission is bound by the rule of law and cannot negotiate international agreements that violate EU law. The Applicant further submits that Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (and other exceptions) cannot be invoked ‘in perpetuum’, i.e. as long as the Commission conducts anywhere negotiations regarding other international agreements. The Commission has moreover failed to state reasons as to how disclosure of the requested documents could specifically and actually undermine the public interest as regards international relations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/50

Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Amedei (For you)

(Case T-480/16)

(2016/C 402/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Berger, M. Wolter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Amedei Srl (Pontedera, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘For you’ — Application for registration No 12 267 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 851/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject Opposition No B 2 342 452 filed against the EUTM application No 12 267 571;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, Articles 12 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 51 of the conditions of employment of ECB staff, the right to career and promotion prospects as well as the principle of legal certainty.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) of Commission Decision C (2002) 601 of 4 March 2002 on the reinforced Mediation Service, since the contested decisions were adopted by the Commission, while its President is alone competent to adopt those decisions, on a proposal from the Director General of the Human Resources and Security Directorate General following an opinion of the Staff Committee.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra)

(Case T-662/16)

(2016/C 441/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gall Pharma GmbH (Judenburg, Austria) (represented by: D. Reichelt and L. Figura, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for registration of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Styriagra’ — EU trade mark application No 12 161 469

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 in Case R 724/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the opposition (Opposition Procedure No 002286568) to Community trade mark No 000233890;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 428/19

Action brought on 13 September 2016 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission

(Case T-654/16)

(2016/C 428/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd (Foshan City, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit and D. Philippe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 2136 of 11 July 2016, rejecting a request for a partial interim review limited to dumping aspects with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011;

— order the Commission to bear the applicant’s costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the defendant infringed Article 17(3) in conjunction with Article 11(3) and Article 11(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. (1)

(1) OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/34

Action brought on 10 October 2016 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap (REPOWER)

(Case T-727/16)

(2016/C 462/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the word mark ‘REPOWER’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 020 351 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 in Case R 2311/2014-5 (REV)

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 80 of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(b) 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 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). This plea has two limbs. — First limb: the French authorities implemented in full the action plan including clear progress indicators established following consultation with the Commission to which the contested decision refers. — Second limb: the contested decision is based on factors which were not envisaged in the action plan.
Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the applicant’s grant application was unlawful.

The applicant submits that the rejection of her administrative complaint was also unlawful because the decision by the Executive Agency of the European Research Council rejecting her grant application was itself unlawful.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/29

Action brought on 10 October 2016 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé Familiale v Commission

(Case T-716/16)

(2016/C 462/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom), Pfizer Santé Familiale (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1140 of 8 July 2016 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 1);

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

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the Combined Nomenclature by failing to follow the precise order prescribed by the General Rules of interpretation in Chapter A of Part I of the Combined Nomenclature for the classification of goods.

— The Commission committed an error of law by applying General Rule 3 in the classification of a good which is not prima facie classifiable under two or more headings of the Combined Nomenclature; and
1.

First plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality directed against Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16), and infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/47

Action brought on 5 November 2016 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS)

(Case T-765/16)

(2017/C 006/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL (Puerto del Rosario, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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 ‘EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS’ — Application for registration No 13 308 259

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 in Case R 1404/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/36

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — The Regents of the University of California v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and CVVP (Tang Gold)

(Case T-405/16)

(2017/C 014/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The Regents of the University of California (Riverside, California, United States of America) (represented by: J. Muñoz-Delgado Mérida, S. Poza Martínez, M. Esteve Sanz y J. Lissen Arbeloa, abogados)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nador Cott Protection SARL (Saint-Raphaël, France) and Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas (Valencia, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the plant variety right at issue: Applicant

Community Plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU 38924, variety denomination: Tang Gold, species: Citrus reticulata Bianco

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 29 April 2016 in Case A006/2014

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Confer on the variety Nadorcott, with regard to characteristic No 68 of Protocol CPVO-TP 201/2, the level of expression ‘very high’ with a mark of 9 or, in the alternative, the level of expression ‘high’ with a mark of 7, entering that classification on the Report on the Differences with Similar Varieties, which form part of the official description of the variety Tang Gold;

— Recognise the existence of manifest differences between the varieties Tang Gold and Nardocott as regards characteristics Nos 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 37, 50, 60 and 65 of Protocol CPVO-TP 201/2, by making a declaration to that effect and granting the amendment of the Report on the Differences with Similar Varieties, which forms part of the official description of the variety Tang Gold, in such a way as to include those differences in the report.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 57, 62, 67, 75 and 81 of Regulation No 2100/94.

— Infringement of Article 49 of Regulation No 874/09.

— Misinterpretation of the Report of the IVIA entitled ‘Extent of the reduction of the seed content through induced mutagenesis’.

— Characteristic No 68 does not depend on environmental conditions.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) committed two errors of law. In the first place, the CST annulled the contested decision, namely the decision of the Commission, of 16 September 2014, to apply to the other party in the proceedings the medical reservation clause provided for in Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and to refuse to award him an invalidity allowance, notwithstanding the fact that a decision may be annulled only exceptionally on the ground of infringement of the reasonable time principle. In the second place, the CST wrongly found that the excessive delay in taking the decision could affect the very content of the decision. The appellant alleges, moreover, an infringement of the duty to provide reasons with regard to that second aspect.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports and of the procedure, infringement of the rights of the defence and infringement of the duty of care, committed by the defendant in adopting the staff report for 2015 (‘the contested staff report’). The applicant raises the following complaints in particular: — the lack of dialogue and the infringement of the rights of the defence; — the contested staff report does not set out any suggestions for improvement or set any objectives in the manner required by the General Instructions for the preparations of staff reports, which constitutes an infringement of the duty of care; — the lack of any intervention by an uninvolved supervisor.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/49

Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Barmenia Krankenversicherung v EUIPO (Mediline)

(Case T-810/16)

(2017/C 022/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Barmenia Krankenversicherung a.G. (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Mediline’ — EU trade mark No 14 655 385

Contested decision: decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2016 in Case R 2437/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/58

Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Techniplan v Commission

(Case T-853/16)

(2017/C 022/78)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Techniplan Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Bonavita, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the European Commission infringed Article 265 TFEU by failing to take a position on the request sent by Techniplan by means of a formal letter of notice;

— order the European Commission to meet the obligation to act provided for in Article 266 TFEU and to pay compensation in respect of the damage for each day on which it fails to meet that obligation, as well as to pay its costs and other disbursements.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an engineering company which was awarded a number of projects in African countries (supervision and surveillance of the planning and asphalting works on the Banikoara-Kandi road in Benin, supervision of the works on the Ouallah-Miringoni Road RN32 in the Comoros, supervision of the regular maintenance works on the asphalted roads in Ajouan and Moheli in the Comoros, supervision and monitoring of the regular maintenance works on Grande Comore in the Comoros, monitoring and surveillance of the construction works on the Kinkala-Mindouli National Road No 1 in Congo, supervision and surveillance of the planning and asphalting works on the Bouar-Fambélé road in the Central African Republic, and preparation and monitoring of works in the context of SP NP/HD (support project for the national plans for health development) in the Democratic Republic of Congo).

The applicant states in this respect that all of those projects were completed and certified by the national authorising officers, and that the corresponding invoices were paid and approved by the bodies of the European Commission, which finances the projects. Nevertheless, entirely unexpectedly, invoices started to be paid only in part. The defendant even applied, again according to the applicant, an arbitrary penalty for the benefit of the European Development Fund, without any specific objection being raised. In particular, the European Commission also intended arbitrarily to use credits claimed by Techniplan in order to offset alleged unspecified debts.

The defendant sent a formal letter of notice on the basis of Article 265 TFEU in which it called on the European Commission to adopt a measure or take an official position on its request for payment and the real nature of the penalties applied.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the competent bodies of the European Commission acted in contravention of the principles of legal certainty and transparency. This situation, Techniplan submits, severely damaged its subjective rights, even though it has a legitimate expectation to know with certainty, at all times and in every situation, what are its EU-law rights and obligations.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has exceeded its implementing powers under Article 291(2) TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. — The Commission has exceeded its implementing powers by disregarding Articles 55 and 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 and granting the authorisation applied for without the conditions laid down in the regulation for such a grant being satisfied and contrary to the aim of the regulation. — The Commission has disregarded Article 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 by granting authorisation without carrying out its own assessment of the conditions for that grant in accordance with that article and without sufficiently investigating whether the conditions for granting the authorisation under that article are satisfied. — The Commission has also disregarded Article 55 of Regulation No 1907/2006 by granting the authorisation contrary to the aim of the authorisation system, inter alia, to ensure a well-functioning internal market and gradually replace substances of very high concern with suitable alternative substances or techniques, where that is economically and technically feasible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/48

Action brought on 7 December 2016 — fritz-kulturgüter v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (fritz-wasser)

(Case T-862/16)

(2017/C 038/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: fritz-kulturgüter GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schindler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Oeiras Carnaxide, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘fritz-wasser’ — Application No 12 314 753

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2016 in Case R 1510/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision to the effect that the appeal is dismissed in its entirety;

— allow application No 012 314 753 to proceeding to registration;

— order the opponent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and order the defendant to pay the remainder of the costs.

Plea in law