ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/46

Action brought on 22 March 2013 — DTL Corporación v OHIM — Vallejo Rosell (Generia)

(Case T-176/13)

2013/C 156/85

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: DTL Corporación, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mar Vallejo Rosell (Pinto, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4, dismissing the appeal brought against the rejection of the application for Community trade mark No 8 830 821‘Generia’ in respect of all of the goods and services in Classes 9, 37, 40, 41 and 42 and in respect of some of the services in Class 35;

— in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the costs of this action to be paid by OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings who oppose this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Generia’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 11, 35, 37, 40, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8 830 821

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mar Vallejo Rosell

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark in grey and white with the word elements ‘Generalia generación renovable’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 35 and 40

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b), Article 63(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/26

Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

(Case T-148/13)

2013/C 123/45

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/125/12 — Assistants (AST 3), and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the Kingdom of Spain seeks the annulment of the notice of open competition referred to above for infringement of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 342 TFEU, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59), Articles 1d and 27 of the Staff Regulations and the case-law in Case C-566/10 P Italy v Commission.

In support of the action, the Kingdom of Spain claims that the notice of competition in respect of which annulment is sought:

— discriminates against candidates whose first language is not English, French or German;

— does not justify objectively and in a concrete manner the limitation of the number of languages in the light of the positions to which the notice relates; the mere general statement relating to ‘the interests of the service’ is not sufficient in that regard;

— it is not in line with the objective of selecting candidates with the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity;
—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds to the examples of products constituting packaging ‘rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material (e.g. plastic film, aluminium, paper) is wound’;
—

annul Decision No 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 extending the effects of Decision No 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 and Implementing Decision No 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 which caused Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen BEN ALI to be adversely affected by a series of restrictive measures consisting of the freezing of all his funds, assets and other economic resources;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/17

Action brought on 7 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-256/13)

2013/C 178/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato, and by G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the letter of 22 February 2013 from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture (Commission ref.: Ares(2013) 237719) concerning ‘Agreement No: ADEC 2007-0266 — Reimbursement — review after appeal’, sent on 25 February 2013 and received by the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani (National Youth Agency) on 6 March 2013 (Agenzia ref.: ANG/2741/AMS), requesting the reimbursement of sums totalling EUR 1 486 485,90, insofar as it seeks reimbursement of EUR 52 036,24 and EUR 183 729,70, together with the letter of 28 February 2013 from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture (Commission ref.: Ares(2013) 267064) addressed to the Head of the Youth and National Civilian Service Department, Prime Minister’s Office, communicating the ‘Final evaluation conclusions’ from the ‘2011 Declaration of assurance’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the Commission’s request for reimbursement of various sums totalling EUR 1 486 485,90, a figure which includes sums in the amount of EUR 52 036,24, relating to expenses incurred by the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani for training and assessing EVS (European Voluntary Service) volunteers in connection with the Youth in Action Programme during 2007 which have been considered ineligible, and of EUR 183 729,70, relating to sums not yet recovered by the Agenzia following requests for reimbursement addressed to beneficiaries of that programme from 2000 to 2004 inclusive.

In support of its action, the Italian Republic relies on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of the combined provisions of Article 3.2.1 and of the last paragraph of Article 5.2.2 of ‘Grant Agreement No 2007 — 0266/001 — 001 for the operational implementation of the Youth in Action Programme’ between the European Commission and the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani. — In this regard, the applicant claims that, although the upper limit per capita for each trainee has indeed been exceeded (for organisational reasons and due to time constraints), it does not appear to be either reasonable or in line with the objective pursued by Decision No 1719/2006/EC of developing cooperation within the European Union in the field of youth to request reimbursement of funds which have in fact been used for purposes which are in line with ‘Grant Agreement No 2007 — 0266/001 — 001’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/52

Appeal brought on 22 May 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 March 2013 in Case F-17/12 Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-284/13 P)

2013/C 207/86

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

— Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/28

Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Ryanair Holdings v Commission

(Case T-260/13)

2013/C 189/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Holdings plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and D. Hull, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the European Commission C(2013) 1106 final of 27 February 2013 declaring a merger to be incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.6663 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus III);

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding, and failed to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard, that the merger, as modified by the commitments offered by the applicant, would significantly impede effective competition in the common market. The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the principle of proportionality, the principle of sound administration, and the obligation to state reasons.

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment and violated the above-mentioned principles with regard to (a) the commitments relating to the divestiture of Aer Lingus’s operations on 43 overlap routes to Flybe Group plc; (b) the commitments relating to the Dublin-London, Cork-London, and Shannon-London routes; (c) the commitments relating Aer Arann’s operation on the 43 overlap routes on which Flybe would operate, and (d) the commitments relating to the routes on which the Commission identified potential competition concerns.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/54

Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Capella v OHIM — Oribay Mirror Buttons (ORIBAY)

(Case T-307/13)

2013/C 207/90

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Holtorf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Oribay Mirror Buttons, SL (San Sebastián, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 March 2013 in Case R 164/2012-4;

— Declare revoked the registration of Community trade mark 003611282 ‘ORIBAY ORIginal Buttons for Automotive Yndustry’ for the following goods and services: — Class 12: Vehicles and parts for vehicles not included in other classes, with the exception of parts for vehicle windows and windscreens; and — Class 37: Repair; repair and maintenance

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: figurative mark, which contains the word elements ‘ORIBAY ORIginal Buttons for Automotive Yndustry, for goods and services in Classes 12, 37 and 40 — Community trade mark No 3 611 282

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Oribay Mirror Buttons, SL

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for revocation was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld and the application for revocation completely rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, infringement of Article 56 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(a)(iii) of Regulation No 2868/95 and infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/21

Action brought on 30 May 2013 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)

(Case T-296/13)

(2013/C 226/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Adler Modemärkte AG (Haibach, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blufin SpA (Carpi, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2013 in Case R 386/2012-2 due to incompatibility with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘MARINE BLEU’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 6 637 193

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Blufin SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUMARINE’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/17

Action brought on 31 May 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Azzedine Alaïa (ALIA)

(Case T-299/13)

2013/C 215/24

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Azzedine Alaïa (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 March 2013 in Case R 819/2012-2;

— order both OHIM and Azzedine Alaïa to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALIA’ for goods in Classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 3 788 999

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Azzedine Alaïa

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International word mark ‘ALAÏA’ and Community figurative mark ‘ALAÏA PARIS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 16, 18, 20, 25 and 35 as well as earlier non-registered trade mark ‘ALAÏA’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Breach of Rules 20(6) and 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/12

Action brought on 11 June 2013 — Elmaghraby and El Gazaerly v Council

(Case T-319/13)

2013/C 245/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ahmed Alaeldin Amin Abdelmaksoud Elmaghraby (Cairo, Egypt) and Naglaa Abdallah El Gazaerly (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. O’Kane, Solicitor)

Defendants: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul, as far as it concerns the applicants, Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP of 21 March 2013 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2013 L 82, p. 54);

— Erase the allegations that each applicant is responsible for the misappropriation of State funds and subject to judicial investigation in Egypt; and

— Order the defendant to bear the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including either of the applicants in the 2013 Measures.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in considering that the listing criterion was fulfilled as regards either of the applicants, as far as there is no legal or factual basis for their designation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated its data protection obligations according to the Data Protection Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (1) and to the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (2).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights to defence and to effective judicial review.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data.

(2) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/25

Action brought on 11 June 2013 — Pappalardo and Others v Commission

(Case T-316/13)

(2013/C 226/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo (Cetara, Italy), Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop. (Cetara); Fedemar Srl (Cetara); Testa Giuseppe E C. Snc (Catania, Italy); Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl (Cetara); Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo EC (Pescara, Italy); and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (Pescara) (represented by: V. Cannizzarro and L. Caroli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Commission is non-contractually liable for the damage caused by the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea, which was declared invalid by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 17 March 2011 in Case C-221/09; and

— as a result, order the European Commission to provide compensation in respect of the damage caused;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in the present case claim that the non-contractual liability in question results from the fact that, by Regulation No 530/2008, the Commission had unlawfully prohibited vessels flying the flag of or registered in Greece, France, Italy, Cyprus and Malta from the fishing for bluefin tuna starting from 16 June 2008, even though a similar prohibition was imposed on vessels flying the flag of or registered in Spain only from 23 June 2008.

According to the applicants, in the present case, all the necessary requirements are met for the European institutions to be found liable as a result of their legislative activity: there is a serious breach of a rule protecting individuals; there is actual harm and there is a causal link between that conduct and the alleged damage.

They note, in that regard, that Regulation No 530/2008 has been declared wholly invalid by the Court of Justice for breaching the principle of non-discrimination and that, according to settled case-law, the breach of that principle is considered as one of the serious breaches of a superior rule of law which is designed to protect individuals.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/37

Action brought on 21 June 2013 — Energa Power Trading v Commission

(Case T-338/13)

2013/C 252/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Energa Power Trading Promitheias kai Emporias Energeias AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare and rule that the Commission has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Treaty, since, despite having been formally requested to do so, it failed to define its position on the complaint lodged on 9 December 2010, concerning State aid which the Greek authorities unlawfully granted to DEI; and

— Order that the Commission bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to act in relation to the alleged illegal State aid granted in favour of DEI.

By omitting to take a position — positive or negative — on the applicant’s complaint alleging illegal state aid granted in favour of DEI despite the submission of a formal notice for after a period of more than 28 months (and at any rate more than 26 months), the Commission has failed to close the preliminary investigation within reasonable time. To the extent that the aforementioned delay may not justified by reference to any exceptional circumstances the Commission has failed to act despite its respective exclusive competence, thus contravening the relate provisions of the Treaty (namely, Articles 106, 107 and 265 TFEU) and Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/21

Action brought on 26 July 2013 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Hautrive (COLOMBIANO HOUSE)

(Case T-387/13)

2013/C 274/35

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nadine Helene Jeanne Hautrive (Chatou, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— vary the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 May 2013 in Case R 757/2012-5, on the basis that, in the present case, the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration under Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 are met;

— or, failing which, annul the contested decision;

— and, in any event, order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nadine Helene Jeanne Hautrive

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word elements ‘COLOMBIANO HOUSE’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 225 798

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Protected Geographical Indication with word elements ‘Café de Colombia’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006