ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 December 2020 — Senseon Tech v EUIPO — Accuride International (SENSEON)

(Case T-724/20)

(2021/C 44/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Senseon Tech Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Andreottola and M. Li Trenta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Accuride International Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States)

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 SENSEON — Application for registration No 17 758 831

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2020 in Case R 2736/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Error in the assessment of the relevant public;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in relation to the determination of similarity of goods and services;
—

in the alternative, order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period of time after the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation arrived at by agreement between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, to order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with figures;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 December 2020 — Kirimova v EUIPO

(Case T-727/20)

(2021/C 163/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nigar Kirimova (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of 30 September 2020 of the Executive Director of EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to exempt the applicant from the nationality requirement pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) (thereafter ‘EUTMR’);

— order EUIPO to enter the applicant to the list of Professional Representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR;

— order EUIPO to pay all costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision No ER 93419-2020 of the Executive Director of the EUIPO of 30 September 2020, concerning the request of the applicant for entry on the list of professional representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR and for an exemption pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) EUTMR

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 (4) EUTMR due to the failure to interpret and implement it in the light of basic principles of the EU and the fundamental prohibition of discrimination.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of sound administration by abuse of discretional power.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 94 and 97 EUTMR by infringement of the right to be heard.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the evidence supporting the case.

(1) OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 5.1.b. of the Guidelines applicable to the Commission and transposed to EIT and, second, of the applicant’s acquired rights. Next, the applicant invokes breach of the authority’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The applicant also alleges arbitrary interpretation of the ‘travel restrictions’ concept, lack of predictability and legal certainty, infringement of the national interpretations of those same sanitary measures introduced in each Member State. Finally, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to private and family life, failure to take into account her situation beyond the actual and justified interest of the service and disproportionate harm to her interests.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Emmentaler Switzerland v EUIPO (EMMENTALER)

(Case T-2/21)

(2021/C 62/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Emmentaler Switzerland (Berne, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark EMMENTALER — International registration designating the European Union No 1 378 524

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 in Case R 2402/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

Action brought on 1 February 2021 — Rotondaro v EUIPO — Pollini (COLLINI)

(Case T-69/21)

(2021/C 98/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carmine Rotondaro (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pollini SpA (Gatteo, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark COLLINI — Application for registration No 15 841 091

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2020 in Case R 2518/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the decision of the Opposition Division and declare that the mark COLLINI is registrable as an EU trade mark in respect of all of the goods in Classes 18 and 25 as set out in application for registration No 15 841 091;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the Instructions adopted by the Executive Director of EUIPO on 22 September 2017 (Decision No EX-17-1);
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23 of the Air Quality Directive and of Section C of Annex III to that directive, infringement of Article 267 TFEU, infringement of Articles 1 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’), infringement of Article 10 of 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, and infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network, in so far as the EEA refuses to refer the necessary questions to the Court on the correct interpretation of the Air Quality Directive. — Under the legal norms cited, the EEA was obliged to refer questions to the Court. The EEA’s course of action, and therefore the contested decision, are contrary to Articles 1 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention. By virtue of Article 1 of that convention, access to justice in environmental matters must be guaranteed at Community level. — The EEA specifically has the aim of providing objective, reliable and comparable information on the environment at European level on the basis of which the measures necessary for protecting the environment can then be taken. This means that the EEA must be able to give correct and legally binding advice on maximum distance from the kerbside as provided for in the fifth point of Section C of Annex III to the Air Quality Directive, which is not possible in this case without referring the necessary questions to the Court.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2021 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (catlover)

(Case T-115/21)

(2021/C 128/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark catlover — Application for registration No 18 107 485

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2020 in Case R 717/2020-1

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 25 January 2021 — PP and Others v Parliament

(Case T-39/21)

(2021/C 110/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: PP, PQ, PR, PS and PT (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— annul the contested decisions;

— annul, in so far as necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints made by applicants under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’);

— order the Parliament to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 1 000 per person;

— order the Parliament to pay compensation for material damage corresponding to 25 % of their salary and pay compensatory interest and default interest;

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Parliament of 31 March 2020 relating to temporary part-time work away from the place of employment for family reasons relating to COVID-19 (‘the decision on 75 % part-time work relating to COVID’) and each individual decision in that respect affecting the applicants, the latter rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, relating to a plea of illegality in that the contested decisions were taken pursuant to unlawful internal rules.

2. Second plea in law, divided into two parts: — first part, alleging infringement of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the defendant manifestly misconstrued the concept of expatriation; — second part, alleging infringement of Articles 62 and 69 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principles of legality and legal certainty.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and failure to have due regard to the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations regarding recovery of overpayments.

Finally, the applicants seek compensation for the non-material and material damage which they claim to have suffered as a result of the contested decisions.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2021 –Kazembe Musonda v Council

(Case T-106/21)

(2021/C 128/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda (Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in the annex to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 February 2021 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC)

(Case T-125/21)

(2021/C 148/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Banco de Investimento Global SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banco BIC Português SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

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 word mark EUROBIC — Application for registration No 16 775 199

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 in case R 607/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, there is a likelihood of confusion between Banco de Investimento Global SA’s earlier trade marks and the contested trade mark and, consequently, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of infringement of Article 95 (1) and (2) and Article 97(1)(c) and (f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, relating to unlawfulness of the rejection of the applicant’s application as a national diplomat and a plea of illegality in respect of the vacancy notices covered by the application, namely that concerning the post of Director for Middle East and North Africa (MENA) (vacancy notice 2020/48) and that concerning the post of Head of the Delegation to Canada (vacancy notice 2020/134).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 March 2021 — WIZZ Air Hungary v Commission

(Case T-142/21)

(2021/C 148/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WIZZ Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating, and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision (EU) of 20 August 2020 in State aid Case SA.57026 (2020/N) — Romania COVID-19: Aid to Blue Air (1); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s review of the eligibility and compatibility conditions for the rescue aid is flawed.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (2).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant relied on inexistent or inadequate evidence.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2020 C 430, p. 2

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20)
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 37 of 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), in so far as the contested decision authorises the placing of Librela® on the European market, whereas the safety and effectiveness of that product have not been adequately and sufficiently demonstrated in the light of that provision.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons regarding the scope of grounds used by the Council to designate the Applicant, specifically with regard to any alleged involvement in repression of civil society and democratic opposition under Article 4(a) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP.
—

with regard to the employment relationship: — in respect of all of the applicants: — reclassify the contractual relationship of the applicants as a permanent contract of employment; — order the defendants to compensate the applicants for the lack of affiliation to a national social security scheme, to be determined on the basis of the applicable legislation; — order them to pay interest on those sums; — set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation to be established on the basis of the relevant applicable legislation, in accordance with the principles laid down by the General Court in the decision to be issued; — in respect of the applicants, whose contractual relationship was terminated by a unilateral decision of the defendants: — order the defendants to pay compensation in lieu of notice: — to the applicant QP: EUR 42 092,50. — to the applicant QT: EUR 69 880,54. — to the applicant QU: EUR 53 749,17. — to the applicant QV: EUR 57 159,69. — to the applicant QY: EUR 63 298,15. — to the applicant RB: EUR 55 303,02. — to the applicant RD: EUR 55 373,64. — to the applicant RF: EUR 40 201,21. — order the defendants to pay each of the applicants compensation for unlawful dismissal assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 12 500 per year of seniority; — order the defendants to pay to each of the applicants QP, QR, QS, QT, QU, QV, QW, QY, QZ, RA, RB, RC, RD and RE the difference in unpaid remuneration from the date of the salary reclassification, namely 1 September 2012; — order them to pay interest on those sums;
2.

Second plea, alleging an error of law on the ground that Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) Regime III was implemented in accordance with the Commission’s decisions of 2007 and 2013, and with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. The applicant claims that the requirement that profits be the result of activities actually and materially carried on in the Autonomous Region of Madeira is not to be interpreted as meaning that only additional costs associated with remoteness, incurred by undertakings registered in the MFZ, will be considered, that tax advantages can be applied only to those profits generated by transactions that are directly subject to those additional costs, or that activities carried on outside Madeira by undertakings licensed in the MFZ and engaged in international activities are to be excluded.
Action brought on 29 March 2021 — JS v EDPS

(Case T-200/21)

(2021/C 217/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the EDPS dated 18 January 2021 rejecting the complaint of the applicant;

— annul also, and so far as necessary, the decision of the EDPS dated 9 March 2021 rejecting the request for review of that initial decision;

— order compensation for the prejudice suffered;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea, alleging breaches of Articles 4(1), 5, 19, 20 and 23 of Regulation No 2018/1725, (1) of the principles of necessity and proportionality, and of Articles 8 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).
1.

First plea in law, alleging a lack of a sufficient legal basis. The applicant submits that a sanction is only justified in so far as it can achieve the objectives for which it is adopted and that the mere finding of a threat to peace is not sufficient. In the present case, the Council of the European Union used the objective of sustainable development of the Tunisian economy and society as justification for the measures adversely affecting the applicant. Thus, the sanction applied by the Council is not aimed at maintaining or restoring peace but at the economic and democratic development of Tunisian society. That sanction must therefore be lifted or amended.
Action brought on 3 May 2021 — FZ and Others v Commission

(Case T-236/21)

(2021/C 242/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FZ and 15 other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision establishing the applicants’ pay slip for the month of July 2020 in so far as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their salary, with retroactive effect from 1 October 2019 and 1 January 2020;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants allege infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment in terms of equivalence of purchasing power, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty of care.

In order to set the correction coefficient applicable to the salary of the applicants who are posted outside the European Union, Eurostat should collect data specific to their place of employment, in accordance with the rules for the application of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, set out in Annex XI thereto. The collection of the data used to set the correction coefficient is carried out under an international cooperation agreement between Eurostat, the OECD and the UN.

The coefficients set on the basis of those data fell from January 2018 to January 2019 from 239,7 to 94,0 whereas, for that same period, the coefficients applied to the salaries of UN personnel were increased to take account of inflation.

In 2017, the Congolese franc (CDF) underwent a sharp devaluation as against the dollar (USD) and the euro, which, coupled with substantial inflation, resulted in a significant increase in prices in USD, according to the analysis of the IMF. Furthermore, the statistical data of both the Central Bank of Congo and the UN and the IMF, show a parallel trend of the USD and the CDF in relation to the euro.