ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/55

Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v Commission and SRB

(Case T-637/17)

(2017/C 382/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros, SA (Oviedo, Spain) and Medicina Asturiana, SA (Oviedo) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

— Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
—

Take note of the lodging in due form and within the prescribed period of an action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union against the implementation of the decision of the Single Resolution Board, an implementing decision which has caused significant harm to the assets of the former and legitimate shareholders and debt holders of the Banco Popular, and deliver a judgment in due course annulling that decision;
—

The contested decision does not comply with the fundamental values of the European Union, the acquis communautaire and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, and is based on a manifestly erroneous reading of the documents in the case-file.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU in so far as the Commission wrongly qualifies the measure as selective.

Making the port authorities subject to the regime of tax on legal persons is not a derogation from the ‘reference system’ since the tax on legal persons is a reference system in itself. The liability of the port authorities to the tax on legal persons is explained by the fact that the management of the ports as a public domain is a public task which is not subject to corporation tax. The port authorities still perform, in essence, a public service, on a non-profit basis, in accordance with the conditions of the legislature and under administrative supervision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/40

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — La Guirigaña and Others v ECB and SRB

(Case T-613/17)

(2017/C 424/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: La Guirigaña, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) and seven other applicants (represented by: J. Díaz-Patón Porras, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should take note that an application has been lodged alleging that the European Union has incurred financial liability in respect of acts and omissions attributable to the European Central Bank and take note of the joint lodging of an action against the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 and, following the appropriate legal procedure, should:

— Declare that the European Union has incurred financial liability towards the applicants;

— Annul the Single Resolution Board’s decision of 7 June 2017, depriving it of effect,

— In the alternative, should the Court not uphold the aforementioned claims, order that the Single Resolution Board compensate the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/40

Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Escriba Serra and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-640/17)

(2017/C 424/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Juan Escriba Serra (Girona, Spain) and seven other applicants (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— principally, and for reasons of procedural economy: — Annul (revoke) in part Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A., in so far as it orders the conversion and write down of Banco Popular subordinated bonds; — Annul in part Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A., in so far as it orders the conversion of Banco Popular subordinated bonds;

— In the alternative, — Annul in full Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; — Annul in full Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.

— Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; and

— Order the Board and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
—

in the alternative, declare that the contested decisions do not constitute legally binding acts as regards the applicant in its action for damages brought against the Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma (Ministry of Human Resources, Hungary) in Case No 18. G. 40.399/2017 before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), and that, for that reason, the applicant is not directly and individually concerned, since it bases its claim for damages on the infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, and not on the infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/35

Action brought on 11 October 2017 — MAN Truck & Bus v EUIPO — Halla Holdings (MANDO)

(Case T-698/17)

(2017/C 437/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MAN Truck & Bus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Halla Holdings Corp. (Yongin-si, Republic of Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MANDO’ — Application for registration No 11 276 144

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 13 July 2017 in Case R 1919/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of the European Parliament set out in its letter of 24 August 2017 notifying the applicant of the rejection of the tender that it had submitted for Lot 55 in the context of call for tenders INLO–D–UPIL–T–16–AO8 relating to the project to extend and modernise the [Konrad Adenauer] Building in Luxembourg (‘the rejection decision’) and the decision awarding that lot to another tenderer (‘the award decision’);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/49

Action brought on 11 October 2017 — UP v Commission

(Case T-706/17)

(2018/C 005/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UP (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare the present application admissible and well-founded;

Consequently:

— Annul the decision of 26 April in which DG HR opposed the applicant’s application for part-time work for medical reasons;

— Annul, if necessary, the decision of 12 July 2017 rejecting the appeal;

— Order the compensation of the applicant’s pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss following from those decisions, estimated, subject to re-assessment, at the sum of EUR 8 800;

— 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 in law, divided into two parts.

The first part alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination and infringement of the right to be heard, in that the Appointing Authority based its decision on rules showing cases different from the applicant’s without having heard her or allowed her to put forward her observations to influence the content of the proposed decision and, in consequence, infringed her rights of the defence.

The second part alleges infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty of care, and a manifest error of assessment of the facts committed by the Appointing Authority, in that it could have considered the allowances for incapacity for work in the light of the general rules of reimbursement of the Joint Rules. The applicant is of the opinion that there is no statutory provision which prevents those allowances from being accumulated with the income drawn from her professional activity, on the ground that her medical situation and her degree of incapacity do not correspond to the medical invalidity criteria provided for in the Staff Regulations of Officials.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/55

Action brought on 21 November 2017 — Grammer v EUIPO (Representation of a geometric figure)

(Case T-762/17)

(2018/C 022/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Grammer AG (Amberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a geometric figure) — Application No 15 389 621

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 in Case R 2250/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/42

Action brought on 5 October 2017 — García Gómez and Others v SRB

(Case T-693/17)

(2018/C 022/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Abel García Gómez and Others (Torrevieja, Spain) and 2 199 other applicants (represented by: J. Cremades García, S. Rodríguez Bajón and M. F. Ruiz Núñez, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Declare this action for annulment admissible and well founded;

— Pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 inapplicable or, in the alternative, declare Articles 21, 22(2)(a) and 24 inapplicable, as well as Articles 18 and 23 thereof;

— Annul the contested SRB Decision;

— Order SRB to pay compensation to the applicants in respect of harm caused to them by the implementation of rules contrary to EU law;

— In the alternative, order SRB to pay compensation to the applicants, as shareholders and creditors, based on the consideration that the Banco Popular’s valuation presented by the applicants is the final valuation under Regulation No 806/2014 in order to determine whether shareholders and creditors would have received better treatment had the institution under resolution initiated ordinary insolvency proceedings;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) allowing the resolution of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/40

Action brought on 24 November 2017 — Beats Electronics v EUIPO — TrekStor (i.Beat)

(Case T-770/17)

(2018/C 032/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States) (represented by: M. Petersenn, lawyer, I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TrekStor Ltd (Hong-Kong, Hong-Kong)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘i.Beat’ — EU trade mark No 5 009 139

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 in Joined Cases R 2175/2016-4 and R 2213/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the Applicant’s appeal recorded under number R 2175/2016-4 and allowed the Contested Mark to remain registered for MP3-players, in particular based on USB flash memory with mini hard discs;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 51(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 read in conjunction with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/44

Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (SPORTSWEAR COMPANY BIG SAM)

(Case T-785/17)

(2018/C 032/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ercan Ilhan (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: S. Can, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Time Gate GmbH (Köln, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SPORTSWEAR COMPANY BIG SAM’ – International registration designating the European Union No 891 276

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 in Case R 974/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 September 2017 (R 974/2016-5) and therefore allow the registration of the trademark Sportswear Company BIG SAM;

— order Time Gate GmbH to bear its own costs;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

— Acquiescence pursuant Article 54 of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging a lack of justification and a manifest error of assessment regarding the classification by the Commission of the measure at issue as State aid. This plea is divided into two parts: — In the first part, the applicant claims that the exception to the application of Article 106(2) TFEU must be combined with Article 93 TFEU, which provides that aids are compatible with the treaties if they meet the needs of coordination of transport or if they represent reimbursement for the discharge of certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public service. — In the second part, the applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment and lack of sufficient justification as regards the application of Article 107 TFEU. First, the contested decision is lacking in sufficient justification in that it provides no evidence to establish or demonstrate how the aid scheme in question affects, or may affect, trade between Member States with respect to French ports and, in particular, the port of Brest. Second, the decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that it classifies as State aid a measure benefitting the port of Brest even though the condition that trade be affected is not satisfied.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/38

Action brought on 12 December 2017 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER)

(Case T-811/17)

(2018/C 052/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Classic Media AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘CLASSIC DRIVER’ — International Registration No 1 108 587

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2017 in Case R 59/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition with costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/41

Action brought on 12 December 2017 — Vitromed v EUIPO — Vitromed Healthcare (VITROMED Germany)

(Case T-821/17)

(2018/C 052/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vitromed GmbH (Jena, Germany) (represented by: M. Linß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vitromed Healthcare (Jaipur, India)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘VITROMED Germany’ — Application No 14 459 903

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 in Case R 2402/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition in its entirety;

— order the opposing party to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/40

Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)

(Case T-823/17)

(2018/C 072/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Etnia Dreams SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: P. Gago Comes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serge Poisson (Limal, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Etnik’ — Application for registration No 15 721 301.

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2018 in Case R 880/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should, as a consequence of the claim being upheld, give a new judgment allowing opposition No B 2 791 229 and therefore, after the appropriate legal formalities, reject the application for registration of the EU trademark No 15 721 301 ‘Etnik’ for Classes 3 and 35, under Articles 8(1)(a) and (b) of the EUTMR, as there is a likelihood of confusion with the Community trade mark No 11 017 241, the proprietor of which is Etnia Dreams SL.

Pleas in law

— The basis of the opposition clearly falls within Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— The defendant should have applied the final subparagraph of Rule 17(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95 and therefore should have informed the applicant of the defect in order for it to be remedied within the period of two months.

— Infringement of Articles 41 and 42 of Regulation No 207/2009.

— Breach of Articles 10, 41, 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/43

Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR)

(Case T-3/18)

(2018/C 072/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANN TAYLOR’ — EU trade mark No 9 865 651

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 in Case R 2370/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the action;

— annul the contested decision;

— confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 9 865 651 ‘ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection;

— order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law