ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kazembe Musonda v Council

(Case T-110/19)

(2019/C 139/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda (Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-116/19)

(2019/C 139/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 March 2019 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Jumbo Africa (Device of a human figure centered over an escutcheon)

(Case T-149/19)

(2019/C 155/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jumbo Africa, SL (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark representing a human figure centered over an escutcheon in colours red, blue, light blue, dark blue, grey and white — Application for registration No 15 273 634

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2018 in Case R 876/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No. B 2 738 030;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the potential intervener to pay the costs before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 91(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 7 March 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission

(Case T-145/19)

(2019/C 155/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: G. Alabau Zabal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the act adopted by the European Commission setting the amount to be repaid by the applicant due to the reduction of funding in Programme LIFE 11.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the act of the European Commission of 14 January 2019, notified on 24 January 2019, setting the amount which the applicant must repay due to the reduction of funding in Programme LIFE 11 ENV/ES/000593-H2AL RECYCLING, and making an order for payment.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement. — In that regard, the applicant submits that the European Commission did not present any arguments or data enabling the applicant to counter its arguments beyond the content of the initial letter of January 2017, in which the applicant was informed of the expenses which were not eligible for funding, given that, in all its communications, the Commission merely reproduced the same arguments.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty or any legal rule relating to its application. — In that regard, the applicant submits that acts which limit subjective rights or legitimate interests must state the reasons on which they are based, in accordance with EU law, given that, otherwise, there may be arbitrary conduct in favour of the party adopting the act, and there may be an abuse of power, which would be contrary to the principles of proportionality, legitimate expectation, equal treatment and ‘prohibition of arbitrariness’ laid down in EU law.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Final Audit Report unlawfully frustrates the Met Office’s legitimate expectation that its ex post facto time recording system and its monthly calculation of indirect costs rates would satisfy the requirements of the Grant Agreements.
Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Bronckers v Commission

(Case T-166/19)

(2019/C 164/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marco Bronckers (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 10 January 2019 under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (1) rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents mentioned in the minutes of the Joint Committee on Spirit Drinks established under the Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks; (2)

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s rejection of the access request misapplies Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, and/or infringes Article 296 TFEU.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s rejection of the access request misapplies Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 and/or infringes Article 296 TFEU, as the Commission has not shown that access to all of the requested documents undermines commercial interests of the Consejo Regulador del Tequila (CRT) or its members.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly found that the applicant failed to show an overriding public interest in disclosure.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s rejection of partial access misapplies Article 4(6) and/or Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, and/or infringes Art. 296 TFEU.

(1) Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p.43).

(2) See Council Decision of 27 May 1997 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks (OJ 1997 L 152, p. 15).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Fleximed v EUIPO — docPrice (Fleximed)

(Case T-214/19)

(2019/C 182/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Fleximed AG (Triesen, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Fleximed — EU trade mark No 12 025 771

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2019 in Case R 1121/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul the aforementioned decision of the Parliament Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures, in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures (recitals 5 and 6, Article 1(7) and Article 2 in so far as it concerns Article 76 of the Implementing Measures of the aforementioned decision), or in so far as it introduces a levy of 5 % on pensions payable after 1 January 2019, or, should it be deemed that all the aforementioned elements cannot be considered separately from the rest of the contested act, annul the aforementioned decision in its entirety;
1.

First plea in law, alleging failure on the part of the Council to fulfil its obligation to state reasons — Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
3.

Infringement of the Guidelines, which also constitutes a significant procedural defect, infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, of the principle of sound administration and sound financial management, of the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken (Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), of the defendant’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its staff and of the duty to take into account the legitimate interests of the applicant, manifest error of assessment in its balancing of the applicant’s interests with those of the service and infringement of the principle of non-arbitrariness
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B)

(Case T-114/19)

(2019/C 213/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dan-Gabriel Pavel (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: E. Nedelcu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: bugatti GmbH (Herford, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark B — European Union trade mark No 13 545 181

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2018 in related Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and maintain the trade mark EUTM-013545181 validly registered as it was registered on 05/05/2016 for all the goods and services;

— order EUIPO to pay the judicial costs.

Pleas in law

— Inapplicability of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 15 March 2019 — Breyer v Commission

(Case T-158/19)

(2019/C 206/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Breyer (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: J. Breyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 17 January 2019 bearing the reference Ares(2018)6073379; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. Misapplication of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) (protection of commercial interests) — In the first plea in law the applicant argues that the disclosure of documents concerning the approval and execution of the iBorderCtrl research project would not negatively impact the protection of the commercial interests of the consortium’s members. The subject matter of the ‘Intelligent Portable Border Control System’ project is research into new technologies for immigration control, such as the introduction of ‘automated lie detection’ and the calculation of a risk value. — Further, the applicant claims that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents at issue.

2. Second plea in law: misapplication of Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(processing of applications) — In the second plea in law the applicant maintains that the Commission processed only the application for access to documents on the execution of the iBorderCtrl research project. However, the application for access to documents relating to the project’s approval was not processed.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 April 2019 — A9.com v EUIPO (Device of a bell icon)

(Case T-240/19)

(2019/C 213/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: A9.com, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of device of a bell icon — Application for registration No 17 868 712)

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 1309/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that:

— The Court annuls the contested decision.

— The respondent must pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal including the necessary expenses of Applicant in both proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other)

(Case T-290/19)

(2019/C 213/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other) — Application for registration No 1 375 540

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2019 in Case R 1918/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 April 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Representation of a fork on a green background)

(Case T-267/19)

(2019/C 230/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: gastivo portal GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Fourchette SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a fork on a green background) — Application for registration No 15 474 356

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 in Case R 1211/2018-4

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 to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 May 2019 — BigBen Interactive v EUIPO — natcon7 (nacon)

(Case T-287/19)

(2019/C 220/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BigBen Interactive (Fretin, France) (represented by: M. Chaminade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: natcon7 GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark nacon — Application for registration No 13 036 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2019 in Case R 1745/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 May 2019 — 12seasons v EUIPO — Société Immobilière et Mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)

(Case T-329/19)

(2019/C 246/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 12seasons GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Immobilière et Mobilière de Montagny (Roanne, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark BE EDGY BERLIN — EU trade mark No 15 981 921

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 in Case R 1522/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Yanukovych/Conseil

(Case T-303/19)

(2019/C 238/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Feodorovych Yanukovych (Rostov on Don, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354, (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant;

— annul the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352, (2) insofar as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-300/18, Yanukovych v Council. (3)

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 64, 5.3.2019, p. 7).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 64, 5.3.2019, p. 1).

(3) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 46.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 June 2019 — Bontempi and Others v EUIPO — Sand Cph (WhiteSand)

(Case T-350/19)

(2019/C 255/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Emanuela Bontempi (Montemarciano, Italy) and 6 others (represented by: S. Rizzo and O. Musco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sand Cph A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark WhiteSand — Application for registration No 16 416 596

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2019 in Case R 1913/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 May 2019 — ‘Scorify’ v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY)

(Case T-328/19)

(2019/C 246/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant:‘Scorify’ UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scor SE (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark in colours red, white and dark blue SCORIFY — Application for registration No 16 214 521

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2019 in Case R 1639/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— carefully consider the applicant’s original pleadings and its grounds of action, and alter the Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, stating that the applicant’s appeal submitted to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office was justified, thus, the opposition had to be rejected;

— order the other party to bear all the costs paid and incurred by the applicant within the meaning of Articles 134, 139, 140, 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Plea in law