ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/30

Action brought on 23 December 2010 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council

(Case T-582/10)

2011/C 55/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Acron OAO (Veliky Novgorod, Russian Federation) and Dorogobuzh OAO (Verkhnedneprovsky Settlement, Russian Federation), (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 856/2010 of 27 September 2010 (1), insofar as it affects the applicants; and

— Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Council Regulation (EU) 856/2010, which terminated a partial interim review initiated pursuant to the request of the applicants for a change in the form of anti-dumping measure by including a related trader in their undertaking in force.

In support of their submissions, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

The applicants submit that the Union institutions used a legally flawed basis to reject their request and terminate the partial interim review without a change of measure.

More specifically, the applicants claim that the Union institutions breached Article 143(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and made a manifest errors of assessment in finding that their related trader was related to another company.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that in the conduct of their investigation and findings in Council Regulation (EU) 856/2010 the institutions breached Article 5(4) TEU requiring the respect by the Union institutions of the fundamental EU law principle of proportionality, and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights embodying the principle of good administration.

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 856/2010 of 27 September 2010 terminating the partial interim review of Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2010 L 254, p. 5)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/31

Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM — TeliaSonera Denmark (Shade of magenta)

(Case T-583/10)

2011/C 55/56

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard and B. Goebel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeliaSonera Denmark A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 October 2010 in case R 463/2009-4;

— Order the defendant or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The colour mark consisting in a shade of magenta for services in classes 38 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 212787

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Articles 4 and 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Closed the case following the withdrawal of the request for declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as inadmissible

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) failed to properly assess the admissibility of the appeal, and (ii) violated Articles 85(3) and 83 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, by denying the legitimate interest to continue the proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/22

Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Eurocool Logistik GmbH v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)

(Case T-599/10)

2011/C 72/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Eurocool Logistik GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Secklehner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peter Lenger (Weinheim, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul in full the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2010 in Case R 451/2010-1 in which the Opposition Division’s decision of 27 January 2010 in opposition proceedings No B 751 570 is confirmed, reject the opposition and refer the trade mark back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for continuation of the registration proceedings and order the defendant to bear all the costs associated with the present legal dispute, in particular the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Eurocool Logistik GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EUROCOOL’ for services in Classes 39 and 42.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peter Lenger.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark which contains the word element ‘EUROCOOL LOGISTICS’ for services in Classes 35 and 39, and the company name ‘EUROCOOL LOGISTICS’ used for specific services in national trade.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 63(2) and Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the applicant in the opposition proceedings was not afforded the opportunity to reply to the other party’s reasoning for the opposition in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because there is no likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/20

Action brought on 28 December 2010 — Almunia Textil v OHIM — FIBA Europe (EuroBasket)

(Case T-596/10)

2011/C 80/39

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Almunia Textil, SA (La Almunia de Doña Godina, Spain) (represented by: J. E. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: FIBA Europe eV (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 October 2010 in Case R 280/2010-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: FIBA Europe eV.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EuroBasket’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 24, 25, 26, 28, 35, 38 and 41.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Almunia Textil, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurative marks containing the word element ‘Basket’, for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and Community trade mark application rejected in part for goods in Classes 9, 25, 28 and 41.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and opposition rejected.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 238/38

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-242/11

( Official Journal of the European Union C 211 of 16 July 2011, p. 27 )

2011/C 238/67

The notice in the Official Journal concerning Case T-242/11, Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam), is to read as follows:
Infringement of Community law due to an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts

The applicant submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts as regards the eligibility of certain personnel expenses, subsistence expenses and travel costs. It also submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts in connection with various services.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/22

Action brought on 17 January 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — BA&SH (ba&sh)

(Case T-23/11)

2011/C 80/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. López Camba and J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BA&SH SAS (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 October 2010 in case R 94/2010-2;

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ba&sh’, for goods in classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 5679758

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2211312 of the figurative mark in colour ‘BASS10’, for goods in class 3; Spanish trade mark registration No 2140717 of the figurative mark in colour ‘BASS10’, for goods in class 18; Spanish trade mark registration No 2140718 of the figurative mark in colour ‘BASS10’, for goods in class 25; Spanish trade mark registration No 2223832 of the figurative mark in colour ‘BASS10’, for goods in class 14

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that no genuine use for the goods concerned was proved. The applicant also considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the concerned trade marks are confusingly similar and as the products designated by the contested trade mark are partially identical and partially similar to those covered by the earlier registrations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/24

Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Bank Kargoshaei and Others v Council

(Case T-8/11)

2011/C 72/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bank Kargoshaei, Bank Melli Iran Investment Company, Bank Melli Iran Printing and Publishing Company, Cement Investment & Development Co., Mazandaran Cement Company, Melli Agrochemical Company, Shomal Cement Co., (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1) and paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to VIII of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (2) and annul the decision contained in the letter of the Council of 28 October 2010;

— declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision of 26 July 2010 (3) and Article 16(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) (EU) No 961/2010 illegal and inapplicable to the applicants;

— order that the Council pay the applicants’ costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the pleas in law which are identical as the pleas in law relied on by the applicant in Case T-7/11, Bank Melli Iran v Council.

(1) OJ L 281, p. 81

(2) OJ L 281, p. 1

(3) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP: of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ L 195, p. 39
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/28

Action brought on 18 February 2011 — Andersen v Commission

(Case T-92/11)

2011/C 103/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. F. Nissen and G. Van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1(2) of the Decision of the Commission dated 24 February 2010 in State Aid case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) — Public service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (DSB) (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 1);

— Order that the Commission pay the cost incurred by the applicant.

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 Commission manifestly erred in law in concluding that the Danish government did not commit a manifest error of appreciation with regard to the classification of the Copenhagen-Ystad route as a public service and in including it in the scheme of public service contracts. The applicant considers that this route has efficiently been operated by market participants without subsidies and therefore should not be included in a public service contract.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in law by not ordering recovery of the incompatible overcompensation paid to DSB due to the dividends paid to its shareholder, the Danish State. The applicant considers that payment of dividends from a wholly State-owned company to the State is not a legitimate mechanism for off-setting incompatible overcompensation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the Commission manifestly erred in law by applying Regulation No 1370/2007 (1) instead of Regulation No 1191/69 (2). The applicant considers that, regarding unlawful State aid, the Commission should apply the law as applicable at the time that aid was granted.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1)

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/16

Action brought on 11 February 2011 — Antrax ItM v OHIM — Heating Company (Radiators for heating)

(Case T-83/11)

2011/C 113/33

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heating Company BVBA (The) (Dilsen, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010, in so far as it declared Community design No 000593959-0001 invalid;

— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 in so far as it ordered Antrax It Srl to pay the costs incurred by The Heating Company BVBA in the proceedings before OHIM;

— order OHIM and The Heating Company BVBA to pay Antrax It SRL the costs, dues and legal fees relating to the present proceedings, together with any additional sums required by law;

— order The Heating Company BVBA to pay Antrax It Srl the costs, dues and legal fees incurred by the latter in the proceedings before OHIM, together with any additional sums required by law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 000593959/0001 (Radiators for heating)

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The Heating Company BVBA

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The contested Community design does not meet the requirements laid down in Articles 4 to 9 of the Community Designs Regulation (CDR), since it lacks distinctive characteristics when compared with German design No 5 covered by the multiple registration No 401 10481.8, published upon application by The Heating Company BVBA and valid in France, Italy and the Benelux as international design No DM/060899

Decision of the Cancellation Division: To declare the Community design invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: To annul the contested decision and declare the Community design invalid

Pleas in law: The individual character of Community design No 000593959-0001
—

annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;
—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Brouha Nathanaël AHOUMA, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/22

Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by the European Training Foundation (ETF) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08 Vandeuren v ETF

(Case T-108/11 P)

2011/C 139/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Training Foundation (ETF) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Monique Vandeuren (Pino Torinese, Italy)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant contends that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08,

— consequently, dismiss the action brought at first instance and, therefore,

— order the respondent to the appeal to pay the entire costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied upon by the appellant are identical to those relied upon in Case T-107/11 P ETF v Schuerings.
1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to observe a reasonable time-limit within which to take the decision, as a result of which: — the proceedings are time-barred: the applicant maintains that the contested decision was adopted after the elapse of the period of four years fixed for the limitation of proceedings, as provided for by Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Likewise, even if there had been an interruption to the running of the limitation period for the proceedings, twice the limitation period had elapsed without any decision’s having been adopted, in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation. The contested decision must be considered unlawful and incapable of being given effect, for the exercise of the corresponding right is time-barred; — breach of the principle of legal certainty: the applicant takes the view that the fact of the Commission’s having let more than 20 years go by between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision entailed disregard for the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of the legal order of the European Union states that all persons have the right to have the matters concerning them dealt with by the institutions of the Union within a reasonable period; — breach of rights of defence: the applicant claims that its rights of defence have been breached, inasmuch as, seeing that more than 20 years passed between the occurrence of the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the applicant was deprived of any chance of submitting its observations in good time, that is to say, at a time when it still held documents that might have enabled it to explain the expenditure considered ineligible by the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 160/26

Action brought on 4 April 2011 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-204/11)

2011/C 160/41

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 of 10 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards recognised testing methods for detecting marine biotoxins in live bivalve molluscs, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested regulation the Commission decided to impose the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method as the reference method for the detection of marine lipophilic toxins, replacing the mouse bioassay method.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 168 TFEU and the principle of proportionality which should govern the adoption of decisions by the institutions of the European Union. — It is stated in this regard that the new reference method established for the detection of lipophilic toxins is no more beneficial for the protection of public health than mouse bioassay.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. — It is stated in this regard that by adopting the decision to replace mouse bioassay with LC-MS/MS as the reference method for the detection of lipophilic toxins, the Commission did not assess all the relevant facts and circumstances of the situation that it intended to regulate, in that it failed to take into consideration the economic impact that such a change would have on the productive sector concerned.