ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging the failure of the Commission to open a formal investigation procedure by wrongly deciding that the State aid measure raises no doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. — Under this ground the applicants argue, first, that the State aid measure is not suitable to pursue its objective, which is to remedy a serious disturbance in the Dutch economy, by compensating the fixed costs of undertakings that have suffered a loss of turnover of 30 % as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and the governmental measures subsequently imposed. The maximum amount of aid is, in the applicants’ view, inappropriate to attain the objective pursued by the State aid measure. The State aid measure grants a maximum of EUR 600 000 to large undertakings. Such an amount is insufficient to remedy a serious disturbance in the Dutch economy by ensuring that undertakings remain economically viable. Especially for large undertakings such as the applicants, EUR 600 000 is not enough to effectively respond to the loss of turnover suffered as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. — Second, the applicants maintain that the State aid measure is disproportionate. The current scheme goes beyond what is necessary in order to prevent liquidity shortages faced by SMEs and support their fixed costs. In fact, the disproportionate amount granted to SMEs allows them to be more competitive, as they are not as restricted by their fixed costs. Additionally, SMEs that received aid are not required as much as the applicants to revert (1) to their equity capital in order to remain competitive. The applicants receive a maximum amount of EUR 600 000 to keep thirty-three hotels running. SMEs, on the other hand, are eligible to receive almost the same amount of aid to tackle the liquidity shortages of only a small or medium-sized hotel.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)

(Case T-281/21)

(2021/C 289/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark APE TEES in colours black and brown — Application for registration No 14 319 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 in Case R 2474/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division.

Plea in law
Action brought on 13 May 2021 — Yanukovych v Conseil

(Case T-263/21)

(2021/C 278/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (2) (‘the Ninth Amending Instruments’ or ‘2021 Sanctions’), insofar as they concern the applicant.

The applicant also seeks his costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Council did not and could not verify that the decision(s) of the Ukrainian authorities on which it relied when listing the applicant were adopted in accordance with his fundamental EU rights of defence and to effective judicial protection.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted the material supplied by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office without any proper examination and/or without taking account of the inaccuracies identified by the applicant. The Council should have undertaken additional checks and requested further evidence from the Ukrainian authorities in light of the observations the applicant submitted and the exculpatory evidence he produced, but the Council’s limited enquiries fell short of what was required. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2021 Sanctions.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU have been breached, in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; (ii) Ukrainian domestic measures would plainly be adequate and sufficient; and (iii) restrictive measures have now been in place for seven years on the basis of a pre-trial investigation which is in reality deceased or at the very least in total stagnation.

(1) OJ 2021, L 77, p. 29.

(2) OJ 2021, L 77, p. 2.
The applicant also considers that the illegalities set out in the appeal amount to faults committed by the defendant. The applicant therefore seeks compensation for the moral damage arising from the contested decision.
Action brought on 31 May 2021 — FC v EASO

(Case T-303/21)

(2021/C 289/62)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested measure rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 March 2021 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; and

— order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The contested measure is vitiated by a breach of the principle of procedural economy and by an infringement of the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection, on the following grounds:

1. infringement of the applicant’s right of defence, since the defendant continues not to connect the disciplinary proceedings with errors and infringements of fundamental rights committed by the defendant at the earlier stage — that is to say, at the pre-disciplinary stage — which also produce effects at the subsequent stage of the disciplinary proceedings; and
6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2(6a) of the Basic Regulation concerning the legal status of the report by which the Commission establishes the existence of significant market distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country. The applicant maintains that there is a violation of Regulation No 1/1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (3) and of its fundamental rights, given that it could not receive the above report in Italian language.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 June 2021 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

(Case T-364/21)

(2021/C 320/60)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU figurative mark representing a leaf — Application for registration No 16 709 305

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2021 in Case R 2196/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims, primarily, that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it refuses the application;

— vary the contested decision by granting the appeal against the examiner’s decision not to grant the application in respect of the goods in Class 16; and

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before both the General Court and EUIPO.

The applicant claims, in the alternative, that the Court should:

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs incurred before the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 5 July 2021 — D&A Pharma v EMA

(Case T-381/21)

(2021/C 329/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Debregeas et associés Pharma (D&A Pharma) (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Viguié and D. Krzisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision by which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) abolished the scientific advisory group ‘Scientific Advisory Group on Psychiatry’ of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), as revealed by the public call for expression of interest for experts to become members of the EMA’s scientific advisory groups (SAGs) of 5 May 2021 and the EMA press release of 5 May 2021;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality between candidates for a marketing authorisation, of the principle of consistency in the opinions of the institutions, and of the provisions of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 726/2004. ( 1 ) The applicant adds that the abolition of the scientific advisory group ‘Scientific Advisory Group on Psychiatry’ is unlawful, more generally, on the ground that it denies candidates for a marketing authorisation a guarantee of consistency in the opinions expressed in the specific therapeutic field of psychiatry, but also in that it is liable to lead to inconsistencies and unequal treatment of candidates for a marketing authorisation in the context of the re-examination procedure provided for in Article 9 of Regulation No 726/2004, which may be requested by the candidate for a marketing authorisation should the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (‘CHMP’) be unfavourable in the initial procedure.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality which must guide the marketing authorisation application procedures before the EMA and of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 726/2004. The applicant claims in that regard that the abolition of the above scientific advisory group necessarily creates, for a candidate for a marketing authorisation in the field of psychiatric medicines who has requested a re-examination procedure, a legitimate doubt as to the impartiality of that procedure, in so far as the members of ad hoc expert groups are selected by the CHMP on the occasion of the re-examination and for each candidate.

3. Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 726/2004, should the Court find that that article authorises the CHMP of the EMA to institute and to abolish, at its discretion, scientific advisory groups, in that this goes against the principles of equality, impartiality and consistency.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 July 2021 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Representation of a geometric figure)

(Case T-375/21)

(2021/C 329/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Lüft, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomas Schafft (Munich)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a geometric figure) — EU trade mark No 13 975 453

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2021 in Joined Cases R 1931/2018-2 and R 1936/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it declares the applicant’s rights in the contested EU trade mark No 13 975 453 to be revoked also in respect of the goods in Class 14 (wristwatches) and Class 18 (watch straps);

— dismiss appeal R 1931/2018-2 brought by the cancellation applicant;

— order EUIPO to pay costs;

— in the event that the other party appears as intervener in the proceedings, order him to bear his own costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Section 2.2, Annex I to Directive 95/16/EC in conjunction with harmonised standard EN 81-1 in so far as the Commission misinterpreted the scope of the requirement of the vertical distance between the car roof and the well ceiling — The Commission misinterpreted the scope of the vertical distance between the car roof and the well ceiling which harmonised standard EN 81-1 prescribes in its original version and even emphasises in its updated version (EN 81-20). First, the contested decision essentially errs as regards the measurement of the minimum vertical distance. In the Commission’s view, for the assessment of essential health and safety requirements in accordance with Directive 95/16/EC it is, principally, not the vertical distance that is decisive but the volume of the refuge above the car. In addition, the Commission erred in comparing the requirements in respect of refuges and free spaces in the headroom with those in the pit.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and fact in finding that the applicants contributed to an overall plan, and by finding that the applicants’ alleged participation was continuous. — The Commission has not proven that the applicants contributed to, or was aware of, an overall plan. — The Commission has not proven that the first or the second applicant participated in a continuous infringement.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 July 2021 — Anglofranchise v EUIPO — Bugrey (BOY LONDON)

(Case T-439/21)

(2021/C 357/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Anglofranchise Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta, R. Perotti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yuliya Bugrey (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark BOY LONDON –European Union trade mark No 11 708 773

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2021 in Case R 459/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal;

— Order Yuliya Bugrey to pay the applicant’s costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

annul the decision of the EEA of 21 September 2020, in so far as that decision, after having decided to grant the request for repayment of the installation allowance which had been erroneously deducted by the EEA from the payment of sums due on the basis of the judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17, nevertheless decides — and it is to that extent that the decision is challenged — to refuse to grant the other requests which the applicant made, in particular in her e-mail of 16 September 2020, to which the contested decision expressly refers, and which consisted in obtaining, in addition to the repayment of the installation allowance unduly deducted, — the substantial balance — although not quantified on the basis of the absence of a detailed breakdown — still owed, plus interest on the dismissal allowance from 22 September 2016, and from the day of the delivery of the judgment, on the amount of the orders made, until the day of actual payment, — a detailed breakdown of the sums due in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items and of the sums already paid to the applicant, which must be collected in priority from the interest and incidental items and, thereafter, from the capital, and — damages and interest on the basis of the misconduct of service committed which consisted, first, in infringing the confidentiality granted by the Court to the applicant, by informing her new employer of the dispute with the EEA, via the salary slip of August 2019 stating the amounts paid in credit and debit, and, second, by refusing to communicate to her the exchange of correspondence which had taken place with her counsel at the time, both before and after the delivery of the judgment referred to above;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 June 2021 — Telly v Commission

(Case T-362/21)

(2021/C 368/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Telly s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Kubáč, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision of 15 March 2021 on State aid SA.55805 (2020/FC) — Czech Republic — Extension of DTT network operators’ frequency licences;

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment;
Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Di Taranto v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-368/21)

(2021/C 368/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Di Taranto (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Pellegrino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 3 May 2021 on the appointment of fifteen European Delegated Prosecutors of the EPPO in the Italian Republic, appointing the European Delegated Prosecutors of the Italian State;

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging unlawfulness as a result of the unlawful nature of the preliminary and binding decision of 28 April 2021 adopted by the Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura (Supreme Council of the Judiciary), which is the competent authority in Italy for designating European Delegated Prosecutors (EDPs).

As an interim measure, the applicant challenges the decision of the College of the EPPO appointing the EDPs, claiming that it is vitiated as a result of the unlawfulness of the decision of 28 April 2021 by which the Supreme Council of the Judiciary approved the final determination in which Dottore Di Taranto, with regard to the three prosecutors to be appointed for the office in Rome, was classified after the other candidates.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Lotion v EUIPO (BLACK IRISH)

(Case T-498/21)

(2021/C 391/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lotion LLC (Woodland Hills, California, United States) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BLACK IRISH — Application for registration No 18 189 156

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2021 in Case R 199/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the contested application for the contested goods and those goods currently claimed in the application;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant including in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

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

— Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Baumberger v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

(Case T-466/21)

(2021/C 382/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dino Baumberger (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Lío in golden yellow and black colour — European Union trade mark No 14 194 872

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 1221/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025762 C);

— reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 14 194 872 registered;

— decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube SL.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s conduct was unlawful — In this regard, the applicant claims that there was an infringement which was sufficiently serious given that, in adopting the decision, the Commission (i) had no margin of discretion, since Article 107(1) TFEU is a provision with direct effect which is precise and unconditional, and (ii) made a manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, the Commission relied on insufficient evidence and distorted the case-law of both the General Court (judgment of 19 March 2019, Italy and Others v Commission, T-98/16, T-196/16 and T-198/16, EU:T:2019:167) and of the Court of Justice (judgment of 2 March 2021, Commission v Italy and Others, C-425/19 P, EU:C:2021:154). — The provisions infringed by the decision are provisions which confer rights on individuals; therefore, that decision also infringes the freedom to conduct a business and the fundamental right to sound administration.