ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/29

Action brought on 3 May 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-261/13)

2013/C 189/59

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Regulation No 119/2013, in so far as Article 1(2) of Regulation No 119/2013 cannot be separated from the other provisions of that regulation. Article 1(2) of Regulation No 119/2013 lies at the core of that regulation, and the other provisions are therefore of no significance without Article 1(2);

— in the alternative, annul Article 1(2) of Regulation No 119/2013;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 2494/95 (1) because Eurostat is designated the entity that is to establish and update the guidelines.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU in that Eurostat has been authorised to establish and update legally binding guidelines.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 338(1) TFEU in that guidelines, instead of one of the legal instruments listed in Article 288 TFEU, are used for the purposes of establishing harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates (HICP-CT).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 5(3) and 14(3) of Regulation No 2494/95, read in conjunction with Article 5a of Decision 1999/468, (2) in that a different procedure is laid down than the regulatory procedure with scrutiny.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 291 TFEU, read in conjunction with Regulation No 182/2011, (3) in relation to the failure to prescribe one of the procedures laid down in Regulation No 182/2011 for the establishment and updating of the guidelines.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 of 23 October 1995 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices (OJ 1995 L 257, p. 1).

(2) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23).

(3) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/12

Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Madaus/OHIM — Indena (ECHINAMID)

(Case T-212/13)

2013/C 178/22

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Madaus GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and A. Späth, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Overturn the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2013 (Case R 27/2012-1);

— Order OHIM to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;

— In the event that Indena S.p.A. joins in the appeal as an intervening party, order the intervening party to bear its own costs.

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 word mark ‘ECHINAMID’ for goods in class 1 — Community trade mark application No 6 830 103

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Greek word mark ‘ECHINACIN’ for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/38

Action brought on 29 April 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL)

(Case T-242/13)

2013/C 207/64

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Castell Macía (Elche, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda, H. Mosback and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) (Budapest, Hungary)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 February 2013 in Case R 1401/2012-1 so as to dismiss the opposition filed and grant the Community trade mark application No 6 798 862‘PEPE CASTELL’, and order the opponent to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings;

— order OHIM, as defendant, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in the present action;

— if necessary, order the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: José Castell Macía

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PEPE CASTELL’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 6 798 862

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark with word elements ‘Pepe Jeans FOOTWEAR’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/37

Action brought on 25 April 2013 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Alifoods (Alifoods)

(Case T-240/13)

2013/C 207/62

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alifoods, SA (Alicante, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2013 in Case R 407/2012-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alifoods, SA

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘Alifoods’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 32 and 35 — Community trade mark application No B 1 825 002

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international and Community word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 4, 9, 16, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/17

Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE)

(Case T-301/13)

2013/C 215/25

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nordex Holding A/S (Dronninglund, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kleis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 1 March 2013 in Case R 2604/2011-1;

— Annul the Cancellation Division’s decision of 21 October 2011 No 4892 C, which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;

— Order the Office to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE’ — Community trade mark registration No 3 600 285

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 grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark partially invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 17(2) and (6) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, together with infringement of Article II.2.3 of Commission Decision (2010) 4456 of 24 June 2010 The applicant claims in that regard that: — the decision contained contradictory reasoning because, on the one hand, it is claimed there had been an unjustified ‘fragmentation of the contracts’, while on the other hand, it is claimed that the ‘subject-matter of the contracts’ was ‘connected to such an extent’ that those contracts must have formed part of a single awards procedure; — there was an erroneous finding as concerns the improper fragmentation of a single contract because it is contradicted by the contents of Commission Decision (2010) 4456 of 24 June 2010; — there was an absence of any ‘splitting up’ of the contracts or of any ‘subdivision of the projects’; — Directive 2004/17/EC was inapplicable to the contracts as they did meet the thresholds therein due to the absence of any cross-border interest.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99, as there were elements and circumstances proving that there were serious doubts about the compatibility of the measures with the common market, such as the inconsistency between the Commission’s statement ‘that Dutch banks performed well in the latest round of EBA (NB: European Banking Authority) stress tests thanks to a favourable weighting of risk-weighted assets (including mortgage loans) and should be able to withstand a heightened level of defaults’ and the passive acceptance of the Dutch authorities’ argument that the Dutch banking sector is instead weak and that the use of the Dutch DGS (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) would have worsened the sector, or the fact that the contested decision contains conditions which represent another clear indication that the opening of the formal investigation procedure was necessary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/44

Action brought on 4 July 2013 — easyJet Airline v Commission

(Case T-355/13)

2013/C 260/79

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. J. Werner and R. Marian, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare void the Commission’s decision C(2013) 2727 final of 3 May 2013 in Case COMP/39.869 — easyJet/Schiphol; and

— Order the defendant 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 that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law (misinterpretation of the provisions of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1)) combined with manifest error of assessment (erroneous conclusion that the national proceedings in the Netherlands equated to a national competition authority having dealt with the case).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes an essential procedural requirement, namely the failure to give adequate statements for the reasons for its rejection. In addition, the Commission has not considered all the matters of fact and of law which the applicant brought to its attention.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/31

Action brought on 14 June 2013 — Pure Fishing/OHIM — Łabowicz (NANOFIL)

(Case T-323/13)

2013/C 252/52

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pure Fishing, Inc. (Spirit Lake, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in case no R1241/2012-2;

— Authorize for registration CTM application no 9611872; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NANOFIL’ for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 611 872

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘NANO’ for goods in class 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/24

Action brought on 2 August 2013 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — TVR Italia (TVR)

(Case T-398/13)

2013/C 274/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Whiteley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TVR Italia Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 14 May 2013 in Case R 823/2011-2;

— Dismiss the appeal of 14 April 2013 by TVR Italia Srl against the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 14 February 2011, B 313 248;

— Order the defendant OHIM and TVR Italia Srl, if it joins the proceedings, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: TVR Italia Srl

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word elements ‘TVR ITALIA’, for goods and services in Classes 12, 25 and 37 — Community trade mark registration No 5 699 954

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word marks ‘TVR’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 11, 12, 25 and 41.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 10 April 2013 in Case R 430/2012-1, in so far as it rejected the application for registration of the trade mark ‘MARGARITAS’ for the following products: confectionery, pastry, sweets, caramels, wine gums, caramel, chewing-gum, gelatine (confectionery), liquorice, lollipops, toffee, pastilles, sugar, chocolate, cocoa.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/22

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT)

(Case T-449/13)

2013/C 304/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut S.A. (Łańcut, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 June 2013 given in Case R 33/2012-4;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark in colours green, red and gold, representing the image of a bovine animal and containing the verbal element ‘WISENT’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark registration No 5 142 039

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR) (1)

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a), 8(1)(b), 8(5) in conjunction with 76(1), 75, 76(1) and (2) CTMR.

(1) OJ L 78, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/7

Action brought on 18 June 2013 — Commission v Thales développement et coopération

(Case T-326/13)

2013/C 298/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Defendant: Thales développement et coopération SAS (Vélizy-Villacoublay, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order Thales to repay to the European Commission all the sums received under the NEMECEL and DREAMCAR contracts, namely, in relation to the NEMECEL contract, the principal sum of EUR 700 335,66 plus interest outstanding and, in relation to the DREAMCAR contract, the principal sum of EUR 812 821,43 plus interest outstanding;

— order Thales to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Commission is seeking, by the action brought under Article 272 TFEU, an order from the Court that the defendant repay all of the sums received by the defendant’s former subsidiary, SRTI (SRTI System, Industrial Process Department), a company that became first, SODETEG (Société d’Études Techniques et d’Entreprises Générales SA) then THALESEC (Thales Engineering and Consulting), in connection with two research contracts known as ‘NEMECEL’ and ‘DREAMCAR’.

The Commission claims that the sums at issue were wrongly paid, following serious financial irregularities, non-compliance with contractual obligations and breaches of fundamental rules of law. The defendant’s subsidiary inter alia declared excessive costs by over-billing for hours not worked.
1.

First plea: misuse of powers and manifest error of assessment, in that: — the allegations as to what the applicant has done have no objective basis and are supported by no tangible evidence; — it is impossible to establish an objective connection between the reasons relied on to justify the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant and the general situation in Côte d’Ivoire; — the initial legal bases for the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant are incompatible with the most recent grounds relied on to justify those measures; — the Council’s decisions are a misuse of procedure or abuse of power.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(2) TFEU and of the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997. In this respect, the applicant alleges that — the services of general economic interest, in respect of whose configuration, organisation and funding the Member States have a wide margin of discretion, are of a lawful nature. — it did not obtain a more favourable competitive position; — the Altmark criteria were observed in the present case, in that there are clearly defined, and expressly transferred, public service obligations and a detailed and an objective economic quantification was carried out that does not exceed the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligation.
1.

First ground of appeal, alleging that Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal is unlawful by reason of tautology and unreasonableness and that there has, in any event, been mistaken, erroneous, misleading and unreasonable interpretation and application of that article, resulting in a serious and manifest infringement of the legally binding principle of natural justice referred to in, inter alia, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission errs both in law and in its assessment of the facts in concluding that the payments provided for under the Settlement Agreements were ‘decisive’ for the finding of a by object infringement: — There is no legal or factual basis for the Commission’s finding that the mere inclusion in the Settlement Agreements of a payment to the applicant was sufficient to establish the existence of a by object infringement. The Commission has failed to meet its burden of proof.
—

Annul: — Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, corrected on 9 May 2013 in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.