ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of a high level of protection of human health and of the environment. This plea is divided into two parts. — First part, alleging infringement of the obligation to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment at the stage of the scientific assessment of risk, in so far as the contested regulation is based on a scientific assessment of risks to health and the environment that does not meet the requirements of the precautionary principle. According to the applicant, insufficiencies arise in relation to identification, selection and weighting, the treatment method and the interpretation of the available data and scientific studies. — Second part, alleging infringement of the obligation to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment at the stage of policy assessment and risk management, in so far as the contested regulation fails to carry out a policy assessment and risk management that comply with the precautionary principle. The applicant submits, on the one hand, that the renewal of the approval occurred in circumstances in which significant deficiencies and uncertainties persist in relation to risk assessment, and, on the other hand, that the renewal is not accompanied by sufficient risk mitigation or risk reduction measures in the broad sense.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/28

Action brought on 30 March 2018 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Group (Mopeds)

(Case T-219/18)

(2018/C 182/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Piaggio & C. SpA (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Group Co. Ltd (Taizhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 1 783 655-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 1496/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the proprietor’s Community design registered under No 1 783 655-0002 invalid, on all the grounds set out in the present application;

— order the defendant and the proprietor to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

— order EUIPO and the potential other party to the present proceedings to pay the entirety of the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 6 CDR;

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) CDR;
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

In the first place, the applicant submits that the Parliament infringed the principle of equality by treating him differently from other Members of the European Parliament in situations that were at least comparable, if not identical, and consequently the Parliament also infringed the principle of sound administration, which establishes an obligation for the competent institution to assess carefully and impartially all the relevant considerations in the case in question.

In the second place, the applicant claims that there is a body of evidence allowing a clear case of fumus persecutionis against him to be established.
—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and
Case T-267/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)

Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)

(Case T-267/18)

Parties

Applicant: Iceland Foods Ltd (Deeside, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, J. Hertzog, C. Hill and J. Warner, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Íslandsstofa (Reykjavik, Iceland)

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: EU figurative mark INSPIRED BY ICELAND — Application for registration No 14 350 094

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 340/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71 of Regulation No 2017/1001 by failing to decide the appeal;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging, firstly, a failure to have regard to the staff policy defined by the Management Board, in that the view was taken in the decision not to re-employ her that it was in the interests of the service to implement a policy of replacing the temporary members of staff by members of the contractual staff. Secondly, this plea alleges an error of assessment in that the view was taken that the replacement of the applicant by a member of the contractual staff was justified by the reorganisation of the Translation Support Department and, thirdly, a factual error in that the view was taken that that was the case.
Case T-199/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — SCF Terminal (Cyprus) and S H B v Council and Others

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — SCF Terminal (Cyprus) and S H B v Council and Others

(Case T-199/18)

Parties

Applicants: SCF Terminal (Cyprus) LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) and S H B, Inc. (Monrovia, Liberia) (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, K. Kakoulli, P. Panayides and C. Pericleous, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup and European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the schedule annexed to this application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:

— find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

— determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants; and

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-197/18, JV Voscf and Others v Council and Others.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU, and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by the Council’s assumption that the Applicant’s treatment in Ukraine complied with fundamental human rights.
—

Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicants as a result of both its actions and omissions which resulted in the applicants losing in full their investments in subordinated bonds of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A.;
Case T-331/18: Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Szécsi and Somossy v Commission

Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Szécsi and Somossy v Commission

(Case T-331/18)

Parties

Applicants: István Szécsi (Szeged, Hungary) and Nóra Somossy (Szeged) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay to the applicants HUF 38330542,83in compensation;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicants interest on the principal claim from 20 April 2016 at the rate of 11,95 % per annum;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following plea.

The applicants claim that the Commission wrongfully breached its duty of supervision under Article 17 TEU, in so far as it failed to take any appropriate measures to ensure that Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 1 ) and the relevant Hungarian implementing legislation were applied by the Hungarian courts.

( 1 ) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in considering that the 2014 resolution of Banco Espírito Santo, S.A. (‘BES’) was taken solely under Portuguese law and prior to the entry into force of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014, L 173, p. 190) (‘BRRD’);
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative ( 2 ) The first and second parts of the European citizens’ initiative registered under the contested decision are manifestly outside the scope of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. For that reason, the registration of the initiative infringes Article 4(2)(b) and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011. Furthermore, the first part of the initiative is abusive and, consequently, is also contrary to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011. As regards the second part, it can be argued that it can lead to a result contrary to the values of the EU established in Article 2 TEU, and is therefore also contrary to Article 4(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011.
Case T-336/18: Action brought on 30 May 2018 — Eagle IP v EUIPO — Consolidated Artists (LILLY e VIOLETTA)

Action brought on 30 May 2018 — Eagle IP v EUIPO — Consolidated Artists (LILLY e VIOLETTA)

(Case T-336/18)

Parties

Applicant: Eagle IP Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Müller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consolidated Artists BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands)

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 LILLY e VIOLETTA — Application for registration No 12 723 086

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 in Case R 1489/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the other party to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

Plea in law
Case T-390/18: Action brought on 21 June 2018 — Nonnemacher v EUIPO — Ingram (WKU WORLD KICKBOXING AND KARATE UNION)

Action brought on 21 June 2018 — Nonnemacher v EUIPO — Ingram (WKU WORLD KICKBOXING AND KARATE UNION)

(Case T-390/18)

Parties

Applicant: Klaus Nonnemacher (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: C. Zierhut, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paul Ingram (Birmingham, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark WKU WORLD KICKBOXING AND KARATE UNION — EU trade mark No 11 523 958

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 April 2018 in Case R 409/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-358/18: Action brought on 9 June 2018 — J. García Carrión v EUIPO — Codorníu (JAUME CODORNÍU)

Action brought on 9 June 2018 — J. García Carrión v EUIPO — Codorníu (JAUME CODORNÍU)

(Case T-358/18)

Parties

Applicant: J. García Carrión, SA (Jumilla, Spain) (represented by: E. Arsuaga Santos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Codorníu, SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, 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: European Union word mark JAUME CORDORNÍU — Application for registration No 14 543 599

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2018 in Case R 451/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refuse mark no 14 543 599 in Class 33;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-423/18: Action brought on 6 July 2018 — Fissler v EUIPO (vita)

Action brought on 6 July 2018 — Fissler v EUIPO (vita)

(Case T-423/18)

Parties

Applicant: Fissler GmbH (Idar-Oberstein, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘vita’ — Application for registration No 15 857 188

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2018 in Case R 1326/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to be heard and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed its right to be heard by not granting access to all the case file documents to which it referred to in the contested decision, by not providing all potentially exculpatory evidence, by failing to issue a supplementary statement of objections to remedy the shortcomings of the initial statement of objections, instead of a letter of facts and by failing to provide adequate access to minutes of meetings with the other parties.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to give adequate reasons for the ECB’s decisions refusing access to the documentation concerned, as those decisions failed to give due consideration to the aims pursued by the Community legislature in establishing the right of natural and legal persons to access documents of the European institutions, in the context of a transparent procedure and in the light of the principles of good governance and citizen participation. Moreover, the arguments put forward by the ECB are general in nature. Similarly, the ECB has failed to take into account the fact that the disclosure of the documents requested can in no way affect the smooth progress of the decision-making procedure in the context of the resolution of credit institutions. Not only has the specific resolution procedure been concluded, but it is now under judicial review, so that the refusal of access makes that review more difficult for the Court itself. Lastly, the decisions fail to take into account the fact that access to the documentation requested is for the sole purpose of exercising the right to an effective remedy laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Vans v EUIPO (ULTRARANGE)

(Case T-434/18)

(2018/C 301/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Costa Mesa, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ULTRARANGE — Application No 16 665 663

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2018 in Case R 2544/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Sintokogio v EUIPO (ProAssist)

(Case T-439/18)

(2018/C 328/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sintokogio Ltd (Nagoya, Japan) (represented by: V. Dalichau, S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger, 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 ProAssist — Application for registration No 1 327 746

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2018 in Case R 2341/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746;

— alternatively amend the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) 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;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in applying the wrong legal standard for the acquisition of grandfathering rights under the Commitments. The applicant submits that in assessing whether Delta had made ‘appropriate use’ of the slots pursuant to the Commitments, the Commission decided that the only analysis to be undertaken was to verify that Delta was not in a situation of ‘misuse’. The applicants further puts forward that, contrary to the Commission’s position, an examination of the wording, context and objective of the Commitments leads to the conclusion that ‘absence of misuse’ is not relevant, and that the correct interpretation of the concept of ‘appropriate use’ in the Commitments would have required the Commission to verify whether the use of the slots was ‘in accordance with the bid’ that Delta formally submitted to receive the slots.
Action brought on 1 August 2018 — Electroquímica Onubense v ECHA

(Case T-481/18)

(2018/C 352/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Electroquímica Onubense, S.L. (Palos de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: D. González Blanco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the General Court to give a new judgment establishing that Electroquímica Onubense (EQO) fulfils the requirements for a medium-sized enterprise for the purposes of the application of the fees to be paid for the registration of products with the ECHA.

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 that the SME calculation report annexed to the contested decision refers to the applicant’s relationship with ERCROS during the years 2013 and 2014 and that its author overlooks very important information, namely, that the applicant company was formed in February 2015 with share capital of EUR 3 000, the minimum capital required under Spanish commercial law. The applicant states, in that regard, that it is the new company’s share capital which was the determining factor in declaring it ‘a small enterprise’, since EQO in fact fulfilled the criteria required in the applicable legislation, ERCROS’s shareholding in that company being on any view insufficient to convert it into a ‘large enterprise’.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that ERCROS was EQO’s sole shareholder during the period from the formation of the company (18/02/15) to the transfer of shares to SALINAS DEL ODIEL (02/06/15) and that merely on a short-term or instrumental basis in order to facilitate EQO’s transfer of ownership to its final recipient, SALINAS DEL ODIEL.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that at the end of the 2015 financial year, EQO was no longer owned by ERCROS (regarded as ‘a large enterprise’), either directly or indirectly, and that it was owned by SALINAS DEL ODIEL (regarded as ‘a medium-sized enterprise’).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the relevant information for the purposes of determining the size of EQO, for the purpose of the application of the legislation concerned, can only be EQO’s relationship with the enterprise which was its parent company at the end of the 2015 financial year — as shown in the annual accounts for that year — and not the short-term and instrumental relationship during the reference financial year.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EUMR and the principles of legality and presumption of innocence were infringed, insofar as the contested decision applies the notion of ‘implementation’ of a concentration beyond its scope and meaning. The applicant submits that the ‘implementation’ of a concentration for the purposes of Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EUMR would require more than a ‘possibility of exercising decisive influence’ on an undertaking and that none of the elements relied on in the contested decision would amount to an implementation. The applicant further submits that, by unduly extending the notion of ‘implementation’, the contested decision would infringe the principle of legality enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the presumption of innocence guaranteed in Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(2) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.