ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-393/18: Action brought on 28 June 2018 — Mellifera v Commission

Action brought on 28 June 2018 — Mellifera v Commission

(Case T-393/18)

Parties

Applicant: Mellifera e. V., Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Willand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision Ares (2018) 2087165 of the Commission, dated 19 April 2018 and notified to the applicant on 19 April 2018;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the dispute.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following plea:

Infringement of Article 10(1), in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g), of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 ( 1 ) and the Aarhus Convention ( 2 )

— The applicant submits that the renewal of the approval for the active substance glyphosate is an administrative act which may be reviewed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006.

— In addition, it is argued, in particular, that the renewal of the approval is a ‘measure of individual scope’ since a decision is taken vis-à-vis the applicant within the framework of the approval procedure.

— It is also submitted that the approval of the active substance glyphosate should have been issued only in accordance with the appropriate restrictions and conditions for the preservation of biodiversity.

— Finally, the applicant criticises errors in the procedure for the renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate.

( 1 ) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

( 2 ) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
Case T-385/18: Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Aldi v EUIPO — Crone (CRONE)

Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Aldi v EUIPO — Crone (CRONE)

(Case T-385/18)

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen und M. Minkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christoph Michael Crone (Krefeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for registration: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark CRONE No 14 854 533

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 in Case R 1100/2017-1

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 29 June 2018 — Hugo’s Hotel v EUIPO — H’ugo’s (Hugo’s Burger Bar)

(Case T-397/18)

(2018/C 301/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hugo’s Hotel Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: R. Sladden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H’ugo’s GmbH (München, 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 Hugo’s Burger Bar in red, black and white — Application for registration No 14 608 806

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2018 in Case R 1879/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Overturn the Board of Appeal’s Decision;

— Declare that the Application Number 014608806 may proceed to registration

Pleas in law
Lack of competence of the Commission and infringement of the principle of subsidiarity

In this regard, the applicants submit that it is not apparent either that it would have been inappropriate for the Bundeskartellamt to bring to a proper end the proceedings pending before it or why the proceedings, on account of their scope or effects, would be better conducted at EU level at such a late point in time.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the publication of information concerning the applicants relating to discussions between traders before the infringement period breaches the presumption of innocence. In that regard, the Commission is not entitled to publish a decision containing allusions to infringing conduct that the applicants cannot challenge. The contested decision thus erred in law in rejecting the requests for confidential treatment of the applicants concerning that information.
—

annul the decision of the EEAS Director General for Budget and Administration of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017)21) establishing the list of officials promoted in the 2017 promotion exercise in so far as it does not contain the applicant’s name;
2.

Infringement of the principle of the general duty of care The second plea in law alleges that the defendant, without objective justification, treated the applicant, as a member of its own staff, less favourably in the classification than it treated candidates who were not yet employed by it.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials in so far as, according to the applicant, the Commission should have taken into account the exceptional circumstances of the case in order to interpret Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations as meaning that the applicant may be entitled as of right to a pension by way of his status as a surviving spouse.
Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Telenet v Commission

(Case T-470/18)

(2018/C 364/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Telenet (Mechelen, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested act in its entirety; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is directed against Commission Decision C(2018) 3410 final of 25 May 2018, adopted in accordance with Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1), concerning case BE/2018/2073: Wholesale local access provided at a fixed location in Belgium, case BE/2018/2074: Wholesale central access provided at a fixed location for mass-market products in Belgium and case BE/2018/2075: Wholesale TV broadcasting in Belgium.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC and abused its discretion by not opening a Phase II investigation. — In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission expressed multiple concerns with the market definition of the Belgian national regulatory authority. — The applicant further claims that, in accordance with Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Commission must initiate a Phase II review in case it has serious doubts with a proposed regulatory measure.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons for its finding that the chosen market definition does not change the regulatory outcome. — In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law where it considered that it could decide not to open a Phase II investigation on the ground that the market definition which the Commission considered more appropriate would allegedly lead to the same regulatory outcome as the one being proposed in the draft measure. The appropriate market definitions would necessarily have altered the legal position of the applicant.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with the procedural safeguards of Directive 2002/21/EC. — In this regard, the applicant puts forward that the draft measure that the Belgian national regulatory authority submitted to the Commission contained a market definition that had not been subjected to a public consultation, as required by Articles 6 and 16(6) of Directive 2002/21/EC. — The applicant further claims that the Commission infringed procedural requirements by commenting on a proposal that had not been subjected to a public consultation.

(1) Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of national solidarity as defined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is a general principle of law. In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the view of the CJEU, a scheme concerning a specific demographic or group of workers is not a legal scheme but a professional scheme. It claims that, in the present case, in view of the discrimination between self-employed persons, who are required to subscribe to the Social Security Scheme for Self-Employed Workers (régime social des travailleurs indépendants, ‘the RSI’) even if their turnover is non-existent or they are running a deficit, and other persons such as self-employed businessmen, employees and civil servants, the scheme is evidently not a legal one. In addition, the applicant argues that the RSI does not comply with the solidarity principle — on which, according to the French State, the RSI, as a legal social security system, is based — in that the applicant is requested to pay minimum and fixed-sum contributions, even in the event of low income. What is more, the applicant could find himself entirely without sickness pay or pension, if insufficient contributions were paid or payments were merely made late, which is allegedly not the case for other French workers subscribed to other social security schemes.
Action brought on 9 August 2018 — Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission

(Case T-485/18)

(2018/C 381/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA (A Coruña, Spain) (represented by: J. Monrabà Bagan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul European Commission decision C(2018) 3780 final of 7 June 2018 concerning access to documents;

— order the defendant to pay 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 fails to respect essential procedural requirements. — The decision does not provide sufficient reasoning to deny or give only partial access to documents in view of the inexistent link between the pending Court proceedings relied upon (Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit (1) and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane (2)) and the request for access to documents. — Sufficient reasoning is an essential procedural requirement and shall always be respected by the European Commission. — The lack of sufficient reasoning entails that the contested decision does not comply with Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU, and, thus, is to be considered void under Article 264, first paragraph, TFEU

2. Second plea in law, alleging, alternatively, the concurrence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents whose access has been denied by the contested decision. — The documents whose access has been requested are of public interest since they would help interpreting essential points on EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road which have been previously applied by the European Commission. — Thus, even were the Court to find a link between the abovementioned pending Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane and the request for access to documents, Article 4(2), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) allows for access to documents when there is an overriding public interest. — The relevance of the documents, not only for the applicant, but for any authority or stakeholder willing to apply EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road, constitutes an overriding public interest and, thus, access thereto should be granted.

(1) Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017, Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana (OJ 2017 C 330, p. 4).

(2) Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. (OJ 2017 C 330, p. 5).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 September 2018 — Zott v EUIPO — TSC Food Products (Baked products)

(Case T-517/18)

(2018/C 373/22)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Zott SE & Co. KG (Mertingen, Germany) (represented by: E. Schalast, R. Lange and C. Böhler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TSC Food Products GmbH (Wels, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 2487983-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2018 in Case R 1341/2017-3

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 20 September 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Beko (BECON)

(Case T-557/18)

(2018/C 399/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beko plc (Watford, United Kingdom)

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 word mark BECON — Application for registration No 13 142 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 in Case R 41/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision as far as the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division was dismissed;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 21 September 2018 — YP v Commission

(Case T-562/18)

(2018/C 399/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YP (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule,

— that the decision of the Commission of 18 September 2017 to impose the penalty of a reprimand on the applicant is annulled;

— that the defendant is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the defendant in considering that the applicant had failed to fulfil his obligations flowing from Article 12 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
—

declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 15 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested exclusion to which the contested decision refers is unlawful since, by virtue of the principles of sincere cooperation, proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, the exclusion ought to have been reduced or omitted. According to the applicant, the contested exclusion is unlawful since, by virtue of the principles of sincere cooperation, proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, the exclusion ought to have been attenuated or omitted, since the rules of EU law applicable in relation to the assessment of the contested national law and practice are not absolutely clear –– thereby making the interpretation put forward by Hungary possible –– and given that the Commission was already aware of that national law and practice and failed to raise any objection in that respect.
Action brought on 26 September 2018 — Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen v Commission

(Case T-583/18)

(2018/C 427/125)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen e.V. (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: C. Antweiler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 concerning the applicant’s aid complaint of 28 September 2016 — SA.46538 (2017/NN).

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 relating to its aid complaint in respect of the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law of Lower Saxony relating to Local Transport; ‘the NNVG’) (Case SA. 46538 (2017/NN)) (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 2).

The action is based on the following pleas in law:

1. Failure to notify as an aid scheme (infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU) By the first plea in law, the applicant submits that the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the NNVG concerns a new aid scheme which ought to have been notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU.

2. Failure to notify as a general rule (infringement of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)) By the second plea in law, the applicant submits that the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the NNVG constitutes an autonomous rule on financial compensation for public service obligations which establishes maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility and which the Land of Lower Saxony intended should be excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1370/2007. Consequently, Paragraph 7a of the NNVG ought to have been notified to the Commission in accordance with the second sentence of Article 3(3) of that regulation.

(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).
Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Hernández Hernández/Council

(Case T-554/18)

(2018/C 427/117)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Socorro Elizabeth Hernández Hernández (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

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

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 acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence. — In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen v EUIPO (Kordes’ Rose Monique)

(Case T-569/18)

(2018/C 436/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co KG (Klein Offenseth-Sparrieshoop, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Kordes’ Rose Monique — Application for registration No 15 856 743

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 1929/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

order the Commission to pay compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant, first because of the two-year exclusion, and second because of the publication of information on that exclusion on its website, that damage being estimated at EUR 434 889,82, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentrosdel deporte (D)

(Case T-615/18)

(2018/C 455/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark D — Application for registration No 11 404 019

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2018 in Case R 2657/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;