ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Regarding the decision of non-renewal of the appellant’s contract — Firstly, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal violated the principle of the rights of defence and the right to be heard and of access to relevant information embodied in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and it distorted the evidence; — Secondly, the appellant alleges that by refusing to authorise a second exchange of pleadings and the production of relevant evidence in response to the observations of the defendant and at the hearing, the Civil Service Tribunal violated the appellant’s rights of defence, committed a manifest error of assessment and denied to the appellant a fair trial; — Thirdly, the appellant alleges a manifest error made by the Civil Service Tribunal in the assessment of the first plea alleging a manifest error of assessment in the decision of the defendant and distortion of the facts and evidence; — Fourthly, the appellant alleges a manifest error in the assessment of the pleas on retaliation and misuse of powers, distortion of the facts and evidence.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons following from Article 113(2) of Regulation No 966/2012 and Article 161(3) of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012, (2) as well as breach of the duty in tender procedures to award the contract to the most economically advantageous tenderer, as follows from Article 110(2) of Regulation No 966/2012 and Article 149(1)(b) of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012. In the further clarification subsequently provided to the applicant, the defendant stated that it had initially made a mistake and that the test results should have been compared against the standards set out in the specifications (copying and printing at 100 per minute) and not against the standards in the tender submitted by the applicant (copying and printing at 110 per minute). Although the defendant explained the alleged correction in the final score by stating that the test results had to be assessed against a lower standard (comparison at 100 instead of 110), the applicant appears, for some incomprehensible reason, totally (mathematically) illogically — and also without a single specific calculation or justification — to have suddenly obtained a lower score (38.61 points as opposed to 41.2 points, whereas a higher score of 44.3 points would have been expected for a comparison made against the specification standards). In view of the very small overall difference between both tenderers for Lot 4, namely 90.81 points for the other undertaking as against 89.67 points for the applicant, on a correct calculation the applicant ought therefore to have been designated as the most economically advantageous tenderer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/35

Action brought on 10 December 2013 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO)

(Case T-664/13)

2014/C 112/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (San Diego, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza (Malaga, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 October 2013 given in Case R 347/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PETCO’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 10 114 081

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark No 9 062 902 for the figurative mark in red and white containing the verbal element ‘PETCO’ for goods and services in Classes 31 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Accepted the appeal in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/21

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others v Commission

(Case T-689/13)

2014/C 85/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain); Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain); Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark); Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom); Koppers Netherlands BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands); Rütgers basic aromatics GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium); Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. (Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Poland); Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom); Grupo Ferroatlántica, SA (Madrid, Spain); SGL Carbon GmbH (Meitingen, Germany); SGL Carbon GmbH (Bad Goisern am Hallstättersee, Austria); SGL Carbon (Passy, France); SGL Carbon, SA (La Coruña, Spain); SGL Carbon Polska S.A. (Racibórz, Poland); and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the Application admissible and well-founded;

— Annul the Contested Act as far as it classifies CTPHT as H400 and H410;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (‘the CLP Regulation’) (OJ L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classifies pitch, coal tar, high temp CAS Number 65996-93-2 (‘CTPHT’) as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) (the ‘Contested Act’).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it infringes the REACH and CLP provisions regarding classification of substances as toxic for the aquatic environment and studies which must be accepted for this purpose, as well as the principle of equal treatment, in so far as it rejected studies performed according to REACH and OECD guidelines and it required testing without any accepted standardised method.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it is based on a manifest error of assessment since it failed to take into consideration the inert inherent properties of CTPHT which have notably a significant impact on UV light testing and the application of the summation method; it established M-factors for PAH constituents without a proper assessment of the studies relied upon and it rejected information provided by the Applicants without valid justification.
Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others/Council

(Case T-14/14)

(2014/C 71/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran), Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran), Khazar Shipping Lines (Anzali Free Zone, Iran), IRISL Europe GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co. (Qeshm Island, Iran), Irano — Misr Shipping Co. (Tehran), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran), Shipping Computer Services Co. (Tehran), Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management (Tehran), South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd (Tehran); and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (Tehran) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46) and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013, amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 there is no proper legal basis for the contested measures, which include as listing criteria a connection with the first applicant (IRISL), shortly after the latter succeeded in its application for annulment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata and non-discrimination.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ rights of defence by not informing IRISL or the other applicants that it intended to enact the contested measures and not giving the applicants a chance to make observations.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to respect for their reputation and property.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/40

Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council

(Case T-95/14)

2014/C 102/61

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction (Tehran, Iran) (represented by J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2013/6661/CFSP in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove its name from the annex thereto;

— annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove its name from the annex thereto, and

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), and Article 1 of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18), in so far as they envisage the inclusion of the applicant in the list of persons and entities subject to those restrictive measures.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based, since they lack any genuine factual or evidential basis.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since, as regards the applicant, the contested provisions are not only unfounded, but are imprecise, unspecific and generic, preventing the applicant from formulating its defence properly.

3. Third plea in law, based on the infringement of the right to effective judicial protection in relation to the statement of reasons for the provisions, the lack of evidence for the reasons stated and the rights of the defence and property, since the requirement to state reasons and the need to produce genuine evidence were not observed, which affects the other rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of power, since there is objective, specific and corroborating evidence that, in adopting the restrictive measures, the Council, fraudulently misusing its position, pursued objectives different from those it claimed to pursue.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging an erroneous interpretation of the legal rules applied, since the Council interpreted and applied those provisions broadly and incorrectly, which is impermissible in relation to provisions regarding penalties.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the right to property, in that it was restricted without any valid justification.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties — The applicant alleges an infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. In that regard, it claims, inter alia, that the State aid recipient is not competitive and is a new undertaking which resulted from restructuring measures. As a result of the purchase of assets belonging to one of companies within its group of undertakings by the applicant, the State aid recipient was deprived of necessary assets for the continuation of its business, without which it could not either continue or recommence its business activities. — Next, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU. The applicant claims that the Commission should have taken account of the serious difficulties with regard to the compatibility of the State aid with the single market and initiated the main investigation procedure. — Finally, the applicant alleges in the context of the second plea in law infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the adjustment to the costs of CPO in the present case constitutes a violation of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. More specifically, the applicant submits the following claims: — The necessary evidence on the basis of which it was concluded that the CPO prices on the Indonesian market are distorted is missing and the Institutions committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that CPO prices on the Indonesian market are distorted; — By using the reference export price (‘HPE’) to adjust the costs, the Institutions did not adjust the costs on ‘a reasonable basis’ as mandated by Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation and/or on the basis of ‘sources which are unaffected by such distortions’; and — Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation does not allow to adjust costs in situations in which prices are simply and allegedly ‘low’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/49

Action brought on 27 January 2014 — UAB MELT WATER v OHIM (Form of a bottle)

(Case T-70/14)

2014/C 112/63

Language in which the application was lodged: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Research and Production Company MELT WATER UAB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2013 in Case R 481/2013-5 and order OHIM to register, as a Community trade mark, the mark consisting of the form of a bottle in respect of which the applicant, Research and Production Company MELT WATER UAB, has sought registration (application No 010 751 584);

— award costs in favour of the applicant, Research and Production Company MELT WATER UAB;

— order the defendant, OHIM, to produce the file concerning the action relating to that application for registration of a Community trade mark (application No 010 751 584).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark in respect of which registration is sought: a three-dimensional mark consisting of the form of a bottle, for goods in Class 32 — application No 010 751 584 for registration of a Community trade mark.

Decision of the Examiner: application rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, together with the case-law of the European Union Courts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/26

Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)

(Case T-59/14)

2014/C 129/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Blackrock, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 October 2013 given in Case R 573/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 11 144 706

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/53

Appeal brought on 24 February 2014 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11 Simpson v Council

(Case T-130/14 P)

2014/C 135/68

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11, Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr. Simpson;

— Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; and

— Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the conclusion of the Civil Service Tribunal, according to which the contested decision is unlawful on grounds of infringement of the obligation to state grounds, is based on erroneous premises due to the distortion of evidence and cannot therefore be upheld.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/32

Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA)

(Case T-193/14)

2014/C 151/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cristiano di Thiene SpA (Thiene, Italy) (represented by: F. Fischetti and F. Celluprica, lawyers)

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2014 given in Case R 96/2013-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AERONAUTICA’ for goods in services in Classes 9, 18, 20, 25, 35, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 7 508 237

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Several earlier Community and UK trade mark registrations of the word marks ‘NAUTICA’ and ‘NAUTICA BLUE’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 18, 20, 25, 27 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/30

Action brought on 27 February 2014 — Chart v EEAS

(Case T-138/14)

2014/C 159/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Randa Chart (Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

— Declare that EEAS is liable for the harm suffered by the applicant between October 2001 and present by reason of the unlawful conduct of the European Union Delegation in Cairo and the EEAS;

— In consequence: — principally, pay Ms Chart the sum of EUR 509 283,88 (five hundred and nine thousand and two hundred and eighty-three euros and eighty-eight cents) as damages in respect of the harm suffered, subject to any increase during the proceedings; — in the alternative, pay Ms Chart the sum of EUR 380 063,81 (three hundred and eighty thousand and sixty-three euros and eighty-one cents) as damages for the harm suffered since 30 October 2008, subject to any increase during the proceedings;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former member of the local staff at the European Union Delegation in Egypt, seeks compensation for a loss which she suffered as a result of unlawful conduct by the European administration consisting of its failure to issue a termination of service certificate in respect of the applicant to the social security services of the Egyptian administration after her resignation. That fact prevents the applicant from returning to work in Egypt.

As regards the defendant’s unlawful conduct complained of, the applicant raises four pleas in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, infringement of the principle of reasonable time, infringement of Egyptian law and infringement of the right to privacy.

The applicant argues that the defendant’s failure to act causes her serious harm and seeks compensation for both the material and non-pecuniary harm.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/24

Action brought on 18 February 2014 — Carbio v Council

(Case T-119/14)

2014/C 151/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cámara Argentina de Biocombustibles (Carbio) (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)