ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/58

Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Beko v EUIPO — Acer (ALTUS)

(Case T-162/18)

(2018/C 152/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Beko plc (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Tritton, barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Acer, Inc. (Taipei City, Taiwan).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ALTUS — Application for registration No 6 490 809

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 in Case R 1991/2016-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and remit the matter back to EUIPO to reconsider the request for suspension;

— order the suspension of the proceedings;

— order EUIPO to pay its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/37

Action brought on 15 February 2018 — VG v Commission

(Case T-84/18)

(2018/C 152/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VG (represented by: G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 270 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— annul, first, the decision of 30 October 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 31 July 2017;

— annul, second, the EPSO decision of 19 April 2017 rejecting her request for review of the decision of EPSO/the Selection Board not to admit her to the next phase of the competition;

— annul, third, the decision of 6 February 2017 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of candidates selected for the purposes of the EPSO/AD/323/16 competition;

— annul, fourth, the notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016; (1)

— annul, finally, in its entirety, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition;

— award damages to the applicant amounting to 50 000 euros;

— order the defendant to pay 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 a manifest error of assessment by EPSO/the Selection Board in the evaluation of the applicant’s working experience and, further, the infringement of Annex III to the notice of competition at issue detailing the required work experience.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard, and, further, infringement of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article s 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (2) breach of Article s 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to those Regulations and, further, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

(1) OJ 2016 C 187, p. A/1.

(2) Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59).
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 4 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision at issue. There are five parts to that plea. — First part, alleging infringement of the principles of diligence, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty and of sound administration and of the applicant’s acquired rights. — Second part, alleging failure by the EEAS to comply with its obligations, its poor administration, and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the applicant’s legitimate expectations. — Third part, alleging infringement of the right to found a family and the right to education. — Fourth part, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. — Fifth part, alleging that in adopting the measure the EEAS failed to balance the interests involved and infringed the principle of proportionality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/48

Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)

(Case T-222/18)

(2018/C 166/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal SA (Anadia, Portugal) (represented by: J. Mioludo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL — EU trade mark No 13 907 027

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2018 in Case R 1206/2017-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 4 April 2017 in Cancellation No. 13433 C;

— refuse the application for a declaration of invalidity of EU trade mark registration No. 13 907 027 ‘ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL (fig.)’;

— maintain the EU trade mark registration No. 13 907 027 ‘ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL (fig.)’ valid for all the covered goods;

— order EUIPO and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to bear their own costs and pay those of the Appelant.

Plea in law
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision commits manifest errors of law and of assessment in finding that the impugned agreements were capable of producing potential anticompetitive effects;
—

annul the decision of 18 January 2018 entitled ‘Decision of the Secretary General pursuant to Article 4 of the rules implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001’ on the ground of infringement of Articles 4, 6 and 9 of that regulation, and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter, of Article 6 the European Convention on Human Rights, of the general principle of equality of arms, and of the duty to state reasons;
Case T-265/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

(Case T-265/18)

Parties

Applicant: Ilona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland)

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: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Formata’ — European Union trade mark No 11 529 427

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2018 in Case R 2032/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action well founded;

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the application for a declaration that the trade mark ‘Formata’ No 11 529 427 is invalid;

— amend the contested decision by declaring the trade mark ‘Formata’ No 11 529 427 invalid;

— amend the contested decision in so far as it concerns the costs;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Case T-237/18: Action brought on 9 April 2018 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M)

Action brought on 9 April 2018 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M)

(Case T-237/18)

Parties

Applicant: Martini-Sportswear GmbH (Annaberg, Austria) (represented by: W. Lang, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olympique de Marseille SASP (Marseille, France).

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 M — International registration designating the European Union No 1 238 066

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Forth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2018 in Case R 1755/2017-4.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the Decision of the Opposition Division of 25 May 2017 invalid;

— revise the contested decision, so that the Opposition is to be dismissed;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, in the event that the applicant were not able to rely on Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, alleging an error of law committed by the defendant institution in interpreting Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and, in the further alternative, if there were no error of law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and infringement of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 52 of that Charter.
Case T-244/18: Action brought on 20 April 2018 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

Action brought on 20 April 2018 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

(Case T-244/18)

Parties

Applicant: d.d.Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etairia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible;

— annul Commission Decision C(2018) 1115 final of 19 February 2018 on the recovery of the sum of EUR 76282,08, together with interest, from ‘d.d.Synergy HELLAS ANONYMI EMPORIKI ETAIRIA PAROCHIS YPIRESION PLIROFORIKIS’;

— order the European Commission to pay 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 infringement of Article 85 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 ( 1 ): — the refusal by the Commission to accept the legitimate request to grant an additional period within which to make payment, despite the fact that 73 % of the capital has already been repaid, including all interest, and even though the personal security requested by the Commission for the entire amount originally due, together with interest, has been constituted, is contrary to the provisions of that Article; — the Commission’s argument concerning the substantive legality of the contested measure is unfounded; — the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the contested decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of, and/or exceeding the limits of its discretion and infringement of the principle of ‘good administration’ — the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion when it adopted the contested decision by disregarding essential evidence submitted by the applicant and by adopting solutions likely to lead to the liquidation of the applicant.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality — the contested decision does not constitute a measure necessary to achieve the objective pursued, in so far as the applicant continues to pay and in so far as it imposes an excessive burden on the applicant and presents a substantive threat to its very existence.

( 1 ) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).
Case T-297/18: Action brought on 8 May 2018 — Wirecard Technologies v EUIPO — Striatum Ventures (supr)

Action brought on 8 May 2018 — Wirecard Technologies v EUIPO — Striatum Ventures (supr)

(Case T-297/18)

Parties

Applicant: Wirecard Technologies GmbH (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Striatum Ventures BV (Rosmalen, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark supr — EU trade mark No 13 163 746

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2018 in Case R 2028/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it joins as intervener, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Case T-293/18: Action brought on 10 May 2018 — Republic of Latvia v European Commission

Action brought on 10 May 2018 — Republic of Latvia v European Commission

(Case T-293/18)

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kucina and V. Soņeca)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul final Commission letter C(2018) 1418 of 12 March 2018, by which the Commission defined its position, and order that institution to adopt a position which does not produce adverse legal effects for Latvia.

— Order the European Commission to bear Latvia’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, Latvia submits that, by defining its position, the Commission has infringed not only Article 263 TFEU, thus creating adverse legal effects for Latvia, but also Article 17(1) TEU, together with Article 3(1)(d) TFEU, Article 38 TFEU and Article 335 TFEU which require the Commission to guarantee that Norway correctly observes the commitments made by that State under the Treaty of Paris ( 1 ) regarding the rights of European Union Member States to non-discriminatory access to fish in the fishing zone of Svalbard.

( 1 ) Treaty between Norway, The United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Ireland, the British overseas Dominions and Sweden concerning Spitsbergen signed in Paris 9th February 1920. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/282051-par-ligumu-starp-norvegiju-amerikas-savienotajam-valstim-daniju-franciju-italiju-japanu-niderlandi-lielbritaniju-un
Case T-353/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Promeco v EUIPO — Aerts (dishes)

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Promeco v EUIPO — Aerts (dishes)

(Case T-353/18)

Parties

Applicant: Promeco NV (Kortrijk, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aerts NV (Geel, Belgium)

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: European Union design No 218 193-0010

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2018 in Case R 459/2016-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the appeal brought by Aerts NV against the decision of the EUIPO’s Invalidity Division of 8 January 2016, case ICD 9842;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Grand Board of Appeal;

— order Aerts NV, in case it intervenes in this case, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Grand Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Case T-334/18: Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Bodegas Altun v EUIPO — Codorníu (ANA DE ALTUN)

Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Bodegas Altun v EUIPO — Codorníu (ANA DE ALTUN)

(Case T-334/18)

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Altun, SL (Baños de Ebro, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, 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 for the trade mark at issue: Applicant to the proceedings before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the European Union figurative trade mark ANA DE ALTUN — Application No 11 860 913

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14/03/2018 in Case R 173/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Case T-346/18: Action brought on 29 May 2018 — Advance Magazine Publishers v EUIPO — Enovation Brands (VOGUE)

Action brought on 29 May 2018 — Advance Magazine Publishers v EUIPO — Enovation Brands (VOGUE)

(Case T-346/18)

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Alkin, barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Enovation Brands, Inc. (Aventura, Florida, United States).

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 trade mark — Application for registration No 12 010 039

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2018 in Case R 259/2017-4.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the part of the contested decision relating to Rule 20(7)(c) /Rule 50(1) CTMIR;

— order the Other Party to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

Plea in law
Case T-299/18: Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-299/18)

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;

— consequently, annul (i) the decision of 19 April 2018 confirming the decision of the European Parliament of 24 November 2017 to award the framework contract for general contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels (Call for tenders No 06/D20/2017/M036) to five tenderers other than Strabag Belgium SA and not to the latter undertaking, and (ii) the tender analysis report (addendum) drafted on 26 March 2018 by the evaluation committee appointed by the responsible authorising officer;

— order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs, including procedural compensation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement:

(i) of Article 110(5) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1) as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1), providing that the Commission is to be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 210 concerning details on the award criteria, including the most economically advantageous tender;

(ii) of Article 151 [of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012], as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2462 of 30 October 2015 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 342, p. 7), setting out the rules applicable to abnormally low tenders; and

(iii) of Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, enshrining the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts.

The applicant takes the view that those rules were infringed in so far as the contested decision:

(i) indicates that no element provided either in the tenders submitted or in the additional explanations subsequently requested makes it possible to state that the tender of one of the companies awarded the contract was abnormally low in the light of the applicable rules; and