ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/40

Action brought on 16 October 2014 — PAN Europe and Unaapi v Commission

(Case T-729/14)

(2015/C 007/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium); and Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2014, Ares(2014)2589479, notified to the applicants’ representative on 6 August 2014 (the contested decision) in response to the applicants’ request of 10 January 2013 under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (1) (MRLs Regulation) to lower the Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for the active substance imidacloprid for honey, pollen and royal jelly; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision the Commission acted not in conformity with the MRLs Regulation, in particular with Article 3 and/or in combination with Article 14(1) and (2)(a), (c) and (d) of the MLRs Regulation, and thus acted illegally.

— The applicants argue that the MRLs Regulation prescribes that animal health should be taken into account by the Commission when deciding on applications under Article 7 of the MRLs Regulation to set or modify an MRL. The Commission thus unlawfully decided to not grant the applicants’ request of the lowering of MRLs for imidacloprid.

— The applicants also submit that according to the definition of an MRL in Article 3(2)(d) of the MRLs Regulation, MRLs are to be based on ‘the lowest consumer exposure necessary to protect vulnerable consumers’ and on ‘good agricultural practice’ (GAP). From the Articles 3(2) and 4(1) second paragraph and from Article 14 (2) (a) and (d) derives that the Commission should have taken into account, when taking the contested decision, the scientific and technical knowledge available on the effects of imidacloprid on honeybees and honeybee colonies. It also derives from these provisions — and in particular from Article 14(2)(d) of the MRLs Regulation — that the Commission unlawfully did not take into account in the contested decision the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 (2), as a decision ‘to modify the uses of plant protection products’.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC, OJ L 70, p. 1.

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances, OJ L 139, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/42

Action brought on 20 November 2014 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING)

(Case T-781/14)

(2015/C 026/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

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: Fabio Cardoni (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration No 1 1 1 32 602

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 2532/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and Mr Cardoni, if he should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/53

Action brought on 18 November 2014 — Actega Terra v OHIM — Heidelberger Druckmaschinen (FoodSafe)

(Case T-766/14)

(2015/C 046/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Actega Terra GmbH (Lehrte, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (Heidelberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: the applicant

Trade mark at issue: the Community word mark ‘FoodSafe’ — Community trade mark No 9 502 551

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 2440/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision to the effect that the Cancellation Division’s decision of 14 October 2013, filing number 6912 C, is annulled and the application for a declaration that Community trade mark No 9 502 551 is invalid is rejected;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/44

Action brought on 9 December 2014 — Stagecoach Group v OHIM (MEGABUS.COM)

(Case T-805/14)

(2015/C 034/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stagecoach Group plc (Perth, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Jacobs, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MEGABUS.COM’ — Application for registration No 1 1 1 31 216

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2014 in Case R 1894/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order Community trade mark No 1 1 1 31 216‘MEGABUS.COM’ be registered for all goods and services, or partially registered for some goods and services;

— Order Community trade mark No 1 1 1 31 216‘MEGABUS.COM’, in the alternative, be registered at least partially in respect of ‘provision of passenger transport services’ for which evidence of acquired distinctiveness has been shown;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/47

Action brought on 23 December 2014 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-826/14)

(2015/C 065/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, Abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested Decision;

— in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested Decision, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision SA.35550 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 15 October 2014 concerning the scheme for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions.

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

1. The first plea in law alleges infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) and Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as the contested Decision is a measure formally lacking a statement of reasons and inasmuch as it does not contain an assessment of the measure in the light of the judgments of the General Court of 7 November 2014 in Cases T-219/10 and T-399/11.

2. The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU since the scheme in question is a measure of a general nature and not a selective measure.

3. The third plea in law is based on there being no new aid and the consequent infringement of Article 13 of Regulation No 659/1999.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)

(Case T-763/14)

(2015/C 073/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Holding Soprema (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sopro Bauchemie GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘SOPRAPUR’– International registration designating the European Union No 977 642

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 in Case R 1370/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/38

Action brought on 28 November 2014 — MPF Holdings v Commission

(Case T-788/14)

(2015/C 065/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MPF Holdings Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: D. Piccinin and E. Whiteford, Barristers, and E. Gibson-Bolton, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 in case SA.35980 (2014/N-2) — United Kingdom, Electricity Market Reform — Capacity Market.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the Commission unlawfully deprived MPF of its right to participate in the formal investigation procedure by failing to open a formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, notwithstanding that the capacity market gives rise to doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The applicant submits that:

— the discriminatory availability of long contract durations cannot be justified by reference to the legitimate objective of procuring the necessary amount of generation capacity;

— the Commission failed adequately to investigate the likely effects of the discriminatory availability of long contract durations on the efficiency of the capacity market and on the owners of existing plants;

— the Commission failed adequately to investigate the United Kingdom Government’s purported justification for discriminatory contract durations, namely that independent generators that rely on project finance require long term contracts;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/30

Action brought on 26 December 2014 — Slovak Telekom v Commission

(Case T-851/14)

(2015/C 127/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Telekom a.s. (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: D. Geradin, lawyer, and R. O’Donoghue, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible;

— annul articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision so far as it affects the applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by article 2 of the contested decision;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings;

— in the event the Court rejects the action as inadmissible or dismisses it on substance, order each party to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 16 October 2014 (AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom) fining the applicant and its parent for abusive conduct in Slovak broadband market pursuant to Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made errors of law and a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant committed an abusive refusal to supply.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s rights of defence in respect of its margin squeeze assessment. The applicant submits that: — the Commission failed to set out its reasoned objections to certain relevant cost principles, methodology and data put forward by the applicant until the contested decision; and — the Commission put forward for the first time in the contested decision a new ‘multi-period’ approach to overturn what was previously a positive margin for 2005 into a negative one.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made errors of facts and/or law and/or a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant’s conduct constituted a margin squeeze. The applicant contends that: — the Commission misapplied the long-run average incremental cost (‘LRAIC’) principles, methodology and data and ignored the applicant’s efficient LRAIC costs; and — the Commission committed legal errors and/or made manifest errors of assessment under its ‘multi-period’ approach.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made errors of law and a manifest error of assessment in that it concluded that the applicant and Deutsche Telekom are part of a single undertaking and that they are both liable for the applicant’s alleged infringement.
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of legal certainty, in that the Civil Service Tribunal, in line with relevant case-law, should have come to the conclusion that it cannot be reasonably argued that one or the other of the two possible interpretations of Article 4 (1) (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, namely whether the reference period of 10 years ends with the initial entry into service or with the entering into service at the entity of secondment, is so manifestly unfounded, that article 85 applies;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza)

(Case T-5/15)

(2015/C 073/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ — Application for registration No 10 610 491

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 491 ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 January 2015 — credentis v OHIM — Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont)

(Case T-53/15)

(2015/C 107/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: credentis AG (Windisch, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Breuer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Karlslunde K/S (Karlslunde, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Curodont’ — Application for registration No 10 332 807

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2014 in Case R 353/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM and Aldi Karlslunde to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul the contested decision and, in particular, Article 1 of the decision in so far as it declares the existence of State aid incompatible with the internal market;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/32

Appeal brought on 20 January 2015 by European Medicines Agency (EMA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12, Hristov v Commission and EMA

(Case T-27/15 P)

(2015/C 118/41)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova)

Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov, European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F 2/12 Hristov v Commission and EMA,

— refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, for a ruling on the other pleas in support of the appeal,

— reserve the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law:

— the Civil Service Tribunal infringed EU law by attributing to the principle of good administration a scope which it does not have;

— in the alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to determine, before making the annulment, whether the failure to observe the principle of good administration could have affected the contents of the contested decision;

— in the further alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal, in any event, infringed EU law by failing to balance the respective interests and failing to limit the effects of its judgments;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 January 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Mabxience (HERTIXAN)

(Case T-41/15)

(2015/C 107/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mabxience SA (Montevideo, Uruguay)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HERTIXAN’ — Application for registration No 10 660 835

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 2550/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

The second plea is based on the performance of a contract in good faith and the prohibition on the abusive application of contractual terms: — first, the applicant maintains that it was not granted the legal right to submit directly to the auditor appointed by the Commission its objections and to clarify the unsupported arguments of the author of the draft audit report. This is particularly important, given that the partiality of the external auditor against the applicant and the errors of the external auditor are at issue. — second, the applicant maintains that the external auditor’s draft audit report was accepted by the Commission without any examination and rejection by argument of the lawful and detailed claims of the applicant, and of the supplementary material which was submitted. The draft audit report was reproduced in the Audit Report 11-BA135-006/22.1.2013 in the POCEMON project agreement No FP7-216088, which incorrectly reports that there was a lack of alternative evidence in relation to the claimed personnel costs. The assessment of the external auditor is arbitrary and unjustified, given that there was produced as evidence a large quantity of alternative evidence and a large number of sworn statements of all those working on the project, and accordingly the Commission decision at issue which groundlessly accepted the assessment of the external auditor is in error.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision, the Commission acted in breach of and wrongly did not or only partially apply Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, because: — the Commission acted in breach of Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 by overlooking the fact that the requested information qualifies as environmental information; — the Commission acted in breach of the Articles 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not interpreting the ground of refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in conformity with Article 4(3) second paragraph of the Aarhus Convention or/and in a sufficient restrictive way, by not weighing the specific interest of protection of the decision-making process invoked by the Commission against the general interests of the disclosure of environmental information and by not stating sufficient reasons for the refusal; — the Commission acted in breach of the Articles 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 by not examining specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access and by not justifying for each specific document for which reason it should not be disclosed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/35

Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE TO PAY)

(Case T-130/15)

(2015/C 155/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WAVE TO PAY’ — Application for registration No 12 258 141

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2015 in Case R 1864/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently — annul the contested decision; — order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-129/15.