ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 20 September 2019 – Teva v Commission and EMA

(Case T-628/19)

(2019/C 383/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Teva BV (Haarlem, Netherlands) (represented by: T. de la Mare, QC, R. Mehta, Barrister and G. Morgan, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission’s Implementing Decision C (2019)5393 final of 11 July 2019 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) for ‘Cabazitaxel Teva – cabazitaxel’ (‘the decision’) insofar as it applies to the applicant, and

— order the defendants to pay the applicant’s 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 Commission failed correctly to apply the concept of a ‘global marketing authorisation’ within the meaning of Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 67), in particular the concept of a ‘derivative’ medicinal product in Article 10(2)(b) thereof.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the EMA breached the principle of procedural fairness and the applicant’s right to good administration, in particular by reversing the burden of proof on generic applicants for marketing authorisations contrary to the requirements of the EU legislation in this field.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by this conduct, the Commission also breached the principle of equal treatment, by treating the applicant differently to the holder of the marketing authorisation for Jevtana®/docetaxel.

(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 30 September 2019 – FF Group Romania v EUIPO – KiK Textilien und Non-Food (_kix)

(Case T-659/19)

(2019/C 383/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FF Group Romania SRL (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A. Căvescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark _kix in colours black, white and green – Application for registration No 12 517 901

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2019 in Case R 353/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs relating to the present action.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) 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;

— Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2018/625;

— Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, impartiality and equality;

— Infringement of the right to be heard and the right to a fair trial;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 October 2019 – Polfarmex v EUIPO – Kaminski (SYRENA)

(Case T-677/19)

(2019/C 399/116)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polfarmex S.A. (Kutno, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arkadiusz Kaminski (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SYRENA – European Union trade mark No 9 262 767

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 in Joined Cases R 1861/2018-2 and R 1840/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in the part declaring the trade mark at issue to remain in force for “cars” in class 12;

and

— alter the contested decision by declaring the trade mark at issue revoked in its entirety, including the goods“cars” in class 12 due to lack of genuine use;

alternatively,

— remit the case to the EUIPO;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with paragraph 42 of the preamble of that Regulation and Article 55(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

— Infringement of Articles 18(1), 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 94(1), 95(1) and paragraph 42 of the preamble of that Regulation and Article 55(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Articles 58(2) and 64(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

The first plea alleges that the contested decisions are vitiated because they infringe the applicant’s right to good administration, in particular as given specific expression in the principles of impartiality and objectivity, and the applicant’s substantive right to be heard.
Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sasol Germany and Others v ECHA

(Case T-640/19)

(2019/C 406/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sasol Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), SI Group - Béthune (Béthune, France), BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul partially the contested act in so far it includes 4-tert-butylphenol (PTBP) as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of criteria for endocrine disruption and the weight of evidence approach, since the defendant failed to demonstrate that there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects on human health or the environment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the ‘equivalent level of concern’, since — first, the ‘equivalent level of concern’ assessment required under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 did not take into account factors other than those relating to the hazards arising from the intrinsic properties of the substance and disregarded factors such as the biodegradability of PTBP that were necessary for the assessment (or were based on mere conjectures); — second, the proposing Member State, Germany, relied on unreliable data and unsubstantiated read-across to another substance’s properties; — third, the contested decision holds out that PTBP was equivalent to a CMR substance for which there is no scientific assessment to provide justification.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment/failure to consider carefully all relevant information and in particular exposure data.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality/failure to choose the least onerous options.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality/failure to conduct a proper Risk Management Options analysis taking into account risk management measures already in place.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 to 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) are unlawful because they are in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminate on the grounds of age, the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together, and disability.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 October 2019 — Dinamo v EUIPO (Favorit)

(Case T-729/19)

(2019/C 423/84)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dinamo GmbH (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union word mark Favorit — Application for registration No 17 924 051

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 985/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 October 2019 — FF&GB Srl v EUIPO (ONE-OFF)

(Case T-707/19)

(2019/C 413/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: FF&GB Srl (Mantova, Italy) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ‘ONE-OFF’ — Application for registration No 17 933 041

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2019 in Case R 239/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that the mark ONE-OFF may be registered as a European Union trade mark for the goods in Classes 18 and 25 as indicated in the application for registration No 17 933 041;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 19 November 2019 — Anglo Austrian AAB Bank and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB

(Case T-797/19)

(2020/C 10/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV (Velp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Fischer, J. Willheim and M. Ketzer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 14 November 2019, by which Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG’s authorisation as a credit institution was withdrawn;

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

— in the light of the circumstances of the present case, give the case priority pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law.

1. The defendant infringed Article 14(5) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, (1) in so far as it incorrectly applied the national law applicable to the withdrawal of authorisation under Article 4(3) of that regulation.

2. The defendant infringed the principle of proportionality, in so far as, by withdrawing authorisation, it unlawfully used the last resort out of the possible means of supervision.

3. The defendant violated Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG’s right to an effective remedy, in so far as it did not suspend operation of the decision.

4. The defendant infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, Paragraph 70(4) of the Bankwesengesetz (Law on banking) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in so far as it failed to respect Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG’s procedural rights guaranteed therein.

5. The defendant violated Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ B.V.‘s right to property, in so far as it withdrew Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG’s authorisation and thereby destroyed the economic value of the shares in Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG held by Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ B.V.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 November 2019 — Huevos Herrera Mejías v EUIPO — Montesierra (MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO)

(Case T-737/19)

(2019/C 432/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Huevos Herrera Mejías, SL (Torre Alháquime, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Montesierra, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO — Application for registration No 51 670 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2019 in Case R 2021/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and any parties intervening on its behalf to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
12.

Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated procedurally because the ECB failed to take appropriate steps to eliminate the influence of officials with a conflict of interest.
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that, even assuming that the CFC measures in question prima facie constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the contested decision wrongly concluded that there was no justification that could apply to defend the compatibility of the measures in question with EU State aid rules. In addition, the contested decision is irrational and inconsistent, in that the Commission has correctly accepted that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified in cases where the only reason for a CFC charge to apply under the counterfactual of Chapter 5 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 would be the ‘UK connected capital’ test, on the basis that that test may be excessively difficult to operate in practice, but at the same time, and without providing adequate reasoning, the Commission contends that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is never justified in cases where the significant people functions test would cause a CFC charge to apply under Chapter 5 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010. In fact, the significant people functions test is excessively difficult to apply in practice, such that the Commission should have found Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 to be justified in the context of that test as well and hence it should have concluded that there is no State aid.
Action brought on 3 December 2019 — Asoliva and Anierac v Commission

(Case T-822/19)

(2020/C 27/72)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Asociación Española de la Industria y Comercio Exportador de Aceite de Oliva (Asoliva) (Madrid, Spain) and Asociación Nacional de Industriales Envasadores y Refinadores de Aceites Comestibles (Anierac) (Madrid) (represented by V. Rodríguez Fuentes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should annul Article 1(1)(b) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1604 of 27 September 2019 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis, published in OJ 2019 L 250, p. 14.

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 Treaties — The applicants take the view that, by imposing an irrefutable presumption of non-conformity of the quality of olive oil, which gives rise to penalties, the contested act infringes the principle of the presumption of innocence under Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty — The applicants take the view that the irrefutable presumption of non-conformity laid down by the contested act undermines legal certainty, since it is based on a method which, on account of the lack of precision, does not make it possible to ensure compliance with the applicable standard with sufficient certainty.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 December 2019 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO — Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX)

(Case T-847/19)

(2020/C 45/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Altenloh, Brinck & Co. GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark PAX — Application for registration No 16 487 803

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2019 in Case R 2324/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 November 2019 — Enoport — Producão de Bebidas v EUIPO — Miguel Torres, SA (CABEÇA DE TOIRO)

(Case T-811/19)

(2020/C 36/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Enoport — Producão de Bebidas Lda (Rio Maior, Portugal) (represented by: R. Milhões, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark CABEÇA DE TOIRO — Application for registration No 15 626 286

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2019 in Case R 394/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)

(Case T-838/19)

(2020/C 45/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0006

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1005/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;

— to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1008/2018-3, R 1010/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;

— order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that even assuming that the CFC measures in question prima facie constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the contested decision wrongly concluded that there was no justification that could apply to defend the compatibility of the measures in question with EU State aid rules. In addition, the contested decision is irrational and inconsistent, in that the Commission has correctly accepted that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified in cases where the only reason for a CFC charge to apply under the counterfactual of Chapter 5 of the said Part 9A would be the ‘UK connected capital’ test, on the basis that that test may be excessively difficult to operate in practice, but at the same time, and without providing adequate reasoning, the Commission contends that the said Chapter 9 is never justified in cases where the significant people functions test would cause a CFC charge to apply under the said Chapter 5. In fact, the significant people functions test is excessively difficult to apply in practice, such that the Commission should have found the said Chapter 9 to be justified in the context of that test as well and, hence, it should have concluded that there is no State aid.
11.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging that even if (which is denied) the contested measure entailed a State aid scheme, the Commission made an error of law in holding that recovery of the aid would not infringe the fundamental principles of EU law, and in ordering recovery irrespective of whether the establishment of the CFCs and their making of loans to non-resident group companies in fact entailed an exercise of the freedom of establishment or the free movement of capital. Specifically, in the present case, recovery would infringe the applicants’ freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU and free movement of capital under Article 63 TFEU. To the extent of such infringement, the recovery order in Article 2 of the contested decision falls to be annulled.