ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4(2) second indent and Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since the Contested Decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of such provisions, which relate to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process respectively, as: — Firstly, the Council failed to demonstrate that disclosure of document 15309/12 prejudices its legal service’s ability to defend it in future legal proceedings, and undermines the legislative process; — Secondly, the Council failed to demonstrate that document 15309/12 is particularly sensitive and/or of a wide scope justifying the setting aside of the presumption favouring disclosure of legal opinions in the legislative context; — Thirdly, the Council’s theory of harm is purely hypothetical. It is factually, as well as legally, unfounded considering that the content of the advice contained in document 15309/12, a consensus among Member States which in line with the legal service’s analysis, was public when the Contested Decision was taken; and — Fourthly, the Council misapplied the overriding public interest test when invoking Article 4(3) first subparagraph when it considered only the perceived risks to its decision-making process associated to disclosure and not the positive effects of such disclosure, inter alia, for the legitimacy of the decision-making process and failed to apply the test at all when invoking Article 4(2) second indent.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has violated the applicants' rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection as (a) the restrictive measures provide no procedure for communicating to the applicants the evidence on which the decision to freeze their assets was based, or for enabling them to comment meaningfully on that evidence; (b) the reasons given contain a general, unsupported, vague allegation of judicial proceedings; and (c) the defendant has not given sufficient information to enable the applicants effectively to make known their views in response, which does not permit a Court to assess whether the Council's decision and assessment was well founded and based on compelling evidence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 233/13

Action brought on 19 July 2013 — CSF v European Commission

(Case T-337/13)

2013/C 233/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CSF Srl (Grumolo delle Abbadesse, Italy) (represented by: R. Santoro, S. Armellini and R. Bugaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision 2013/173/EU published on 10 April 2013 and notified to the applicant on 16 April 2013;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action contests Commission Decision 2013/173/EU of 8 April 2013‘on a measure taken by Denmark according to Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery’. That decision found the ban imposed by the Danish authorities to be justified (OJ 2013 L 101, p. 29).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 5, 6(1), 7 and 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC and points 1.1.2 and 3.4.4 of Annex I thereto. — It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision is not compatible with the above provisions since it did not take into account the fact that, in reality, the FOPS protective structures for the applicant’s Multione S630 machines are mandatory in all cases in which use of the machines exposes the operator to the risk of falling objects or material.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/21

Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna)

(Case T-302/13)

(2013/C 226/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nordex Holding A/S (Dronninglund, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kleis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 21 March 2013 in Case R 2608/2011-1;

— Annul the Cancellation Division’s decision of 21 October 2011 No 4891 C, which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘Taverna’– Community trade mark registration No 5 466 909

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark partially invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/31

Action brought on 14 June 2013 — Tsujimoto/OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)

(Case T-322/13)

2013/C 252/51

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japon) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

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

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 (Trademarks and Designs) of 25 March 2013 (Case R 1364/2012-2);

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KENZO’, for services in classes 35, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 8 701 286

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 of the word mark ‘KENZO’, for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76(2) and 8(5) of CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/46

Action brought on 9 July 2013 — Menelaus/OHIM — Garcia Mahiques (VIGOR)

(Case T-361/13)

2013/C 260/82

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Menelaus BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: V. Garcia Mahiques (Jesus Pobre, Spain), F. Garcia Mahiques (Jesus Pobre, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of defendant’s Second Board of Appeal of 23 April 2013, in Case R 88/2012-2, to the extent that it annulled the decision of the Office’s Cancellation Division of 11 November 2011 in Case 5061;

— Dissmiss the appeal of the other party against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 10 November 2011 in Case C 5061;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal

— In case the other party intervenes in this case, order Mr Vicente Garcia Mathiques and Mr Felipe Garcia Mahiques to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘VIGOR’– Community trade mark registration No 4 386 371

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 8(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part and annulled the contested decision to the extent that it rejected the application for invalidity as regards certain goods in class 21 and dismissed the appeal for the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rules 22(4) and Rules 79 to 82 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (CTMIR); Article 57(2) CTMR in conjunction with Article 15 (1)(a) CTMR; Article 57(2) CTMR in conjunction with Article 15(1)(a) CTMR and Article 75 CTMR; Article 56(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 41(1) CTMR; and Article 57(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) in conjunction with Rules 40 and 22 CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/42

Action brought on 27 June 2013 — Groupe Léa Nature/OHIM — Debonaire Trading (SO'BiO ētic)

(Case T-341/13)

2013/C 260/76

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Groupe Léa Nature (Périgny, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Debonaire Trading Internacional, Lda (Funchal, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the application admissible;

— Annul decision R 203/2011-1 of the First Board of Appeal for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 March 2013, notified 18 April 2013;

— Order DEBONAIRE TRADING INTERNACIONAL LDA and OHIM each to bear the costs, which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SO’Bio ētic’, for goods in classes 3, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 6 827 281

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 registrations and United Kingdom trade mark registrations of the word mark ‘SO…?’et al., for goods in classes 3 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application with respect to all goods claimed in classes 3 and 25

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) and (5) of CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/19

Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Moonlight v OHIM — Lampenwelt (Moon)

(Case T-374/13)

2013/C 274/32

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moonlight GmbH (Wehr, Germany) (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza and M. Nielen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG (Schlitz, Germany)

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) (OHIM) of 13 May 2013 in Case R 676/2012-4 and require OHIM to dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of Community trade mark No 6 084 081;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘Moon’ for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark No 6 084 081

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Moonlight GmbH

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
—

in the alternative, in the event that the first head of claim is dismissed, annul the contested decision in order to conclude that RETEGAL is not a direct or indirect beneficiary of unlawful State aid; and
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights, is in four parts based on: — an infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence, since the applicant was not given a hearing prior to the adoption of the restrictive measures against him; — the failure to notify the applicant of the contested measures, notwithstanding the fact that his address was known to the authorities; — a failure to state reasons, since the statement of reasons set out in the contested measures in support of the restrictive measures taken against the applicant bears no relation either to the situation in Libya at that time or to the objectives pursued; — the failure to hold a hearing.
Seventh plea in law, alleging an error of law in calculating the fine without taking into account the limited gravity of the alleged infringement and a manifest error of assessment in setting the fine proportionately higher than the fine imposed on Lundbeck and failing to take into account the uncertainty in the law, the less serious nature of the infringement, and the geographic scope.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/32

Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission

(Case T-467/13)

2013/C 313/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Arrow Group ApS (Roskilde, Denmark); and Arrow Generics Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kon, C. Firth, and C. Humpe, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in Case COMP/39226 — Lundbeck insofar as they pertain to Arrow; or

— In the alternative annul Article 2 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in Case COMP/39226 — Lundbeck insofar as it imposes a fine on Arrow in respect of the UK and Danish Agreements; or

— In the further alternative annul Article 2 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in Case COMP/39226 — Lundbeck insofar as it imposes a fine on Arrow in respect of the Danish Agreement and reduce the fine accordingly; or

— In the final alternative reduce the fine imposed pursuant to Article 2 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in Case COMP/39226 — Lundbeck; and

— Order the Commission to pay Arrow’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements in the process leading to the adoption of the Decision, by failing (i) to open proceedings and pursue its investigation with a reasonable timeframe, (ii) to provide timely and proper access to file and (iii) to issue a supplementary statement of objections.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that Arrow and Lundbeck were potential competitors when entering into each of the Agreements.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that each of the Agreements had the object of restricting competition contrary to Article 101 TFEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed the principles of proportionality, nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, and legal certainty in imposing a fine on Arrow.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging in the alternative that the Commission has erred in characterising the UK Agreement and the Danish Agreement as a single continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and has infringed Article 25 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) by imposing a fine on Arrow in respect of the Danish Agreement following the expiry of the limitation period for the imposition of fines.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging in the further alternative, that the Commission has committed errors in calculating the amount of the fine by imposing a fine which is disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged infringements of Article 101 TFEU.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/33

Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Richter + Frenzel GmbH v OHIM — Richter (Richter+Frenzel)

(Case T-418/13)

2013/C 325/56

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Richter + Frenzel GmbH + Co. KG (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:Ferdinand Richter GmbH (Pasching, Austria)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2013 (R 2001/2011-4);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Richter+Frenzel’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 Community trade mark application No 8 545 998

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ferdinand Richter GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘RICHTER’, the figurative mark ‘RICHTER edition’ and the non-registered mark ‘Richter’ used in the course of trade in Austria

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/44

Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Hermann Trollius v ECHA

(Case T-466/13)

2013/C 325/72

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Trollius GmbH (Lauterhofen, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and J. Schrotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul ECHA’s decision No SME (2013) 0191 of 31 January 2013, as well as ECHA’s invoice No 10035033 of 4 February 2013; and

— Order the Defendant to bear all costs including the Applicant’s 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 the Defendant’s lack of competence. — The Applicant submits that the defendant has not been competent to adopt the contested decision SME (2013) 0191, because neither Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (1) nor Regulation (EC) 340/2008 (2) entitles the Defendant to issue a separate decision as to whether a registrant complies with the SME criteria.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 104(1) of the Reach Regulation in connection with Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 (3). — The Applicant submits that in its entire communication with the Applicant, the Defendant disregarded its obligation to address a person subject to the sovereignty of a Member State in the official language of that state, and that this breach of law has prevented the Applicant from fulfilling the requirements demanded of him with regard to proving its status as a small enterprise.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Applicant in fact is a small enterprise according to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (4), and so the contested decisions are wrong on the substance.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (Reach Regulation)

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(3) EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community

(4) Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises
1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, the right to protection of personal data and the secrecy or confidentiality of investigations, as protected by Articles 8 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and by Article 16 TFEU. The applicants allege that the defendant sent letters to the Netherlands Government about a pending investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in respect of which no (final) report has yet been produced, but which expressly name the applicants and which indicate, or at least very strongly suggest, that the applicants are involved in irregularities in the context of the management of the 9th European Development Fund project, and accordingly, on the basis of that allegation, decided that the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund for the projects on the former Netherlands Antilles could not be assigned to the applicants. At the same time, the applicants were never designated by OLAF as a ‘person concerned’, so they have never been aware that they had to defend themselves as a ‘person concerned’, thus making it impossible for them to defend themselves since, up to now, they have still not heard what the concrete allegations, allegedly existing against them, and against which they must defend themselves, are.