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

Action brought on 21 March 2022 — Lilly Drogerie v EUIPO — Lillydoo (LILLYDOO kids)

(Case T-150/22)

(2022/C 198/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lilly Drogerie d.o.o. Belgrade (Stari Grad) (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: E. Bojinova-Miller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lillydoo GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark LILLYDOO kids — International registration designating the European Union No. 1 495 352

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2022 in Joined Cases R 903/2021-2 and R 1298/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to the present action.

Plea in law
Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Svenska Bankföreningen and Länsförsäkringar Bank v Commission

(Case T-112/22)

(2022/C 191/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ideella föreningen Svenska Bankföreningen med firma Svenska Bankföreningen, Näringsverksamhet (Stockholm, Sweden), Länsförsäkringar Bank AB (Stockholm) (represented by: P. Hansson, M. Eriksson and M. Persson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 24 November 2021 in Case SA.56348(2021/N) — Sweden: Swedish tax on credit institutions; (1)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the applicants’ procedural rights, in that it failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

It is argued that the Commission objectively faced serious difficulties during the preliminary examination of the notified measure and should have initiated the formal investigation procedure. For example:

— The applicants allege that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the parameters of the reference system identified by the Commission were clearly not consistent with the objective of the risk tax.

— The applicants further maintain that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the credit institutions that fall inside or outside the scope of the risk tax are in a comparable legal and factual situation, in the light of the objective of the tax system.

— In addition, it is argued that the Commission misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice, when assessing the threshold for taxation.

— The applicants also argue that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that there was no justification of the difference in treatment and that it was under no circumstances proportionate.

— Finally, the applicants assert that the examination carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination procedure was insufficient and incomplete.

(1) COM(2021) 8637 final and see publication in OJ 2021 C 511, p. 2.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 March 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-168/22)

(2022/C 207/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

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 word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 January 2022 in Case R 1612/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the applicant’s appeal;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal’s analysis of distinctive character erred substantially;

— The Board of Appeal erred in failing to find a likelihood of confusion;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 March 2022 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG)

(Case T-154/22)

(2022/C 198/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Machei and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XTG S.A. (Wrocław, Poland)

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: European Union word mark XTG — Application for registration No 18 120 217

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 1385/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Shatrov v Council

(Case T-216/22)

(2022/C 222/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Evgenevich Shatrov (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant;

— pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the argument that the contested measures are unlawful in so far as they concern the applicant, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and in particular infringed its examination obligations. In the applicant’s view, the Council failed to provide any concrete evidence to justify the validity of the applicant’s inclusion on the list in the contested measures.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of EU Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and freedom of establishment).
Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Prigozhina v Council

(Case T-212/22)

(2022/C 237/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Violetta Prigozhina (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action of Ms Violetta Prigozhina admissible and;

In so far as they concern the applicant,

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP; (1)

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014; (2)

— rule that in any event the name of Ms Violetta Prigozhina should be removed without delay from the contested acts;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the Council failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for the contested acts by providing no specific reason for listing the name of the applicant in the body of the contested acts or to understand the logic leading to that listing.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a lack of substantive legality. The applicant claims that the reasoning is vitiated by factual errors which deny it a sufficient basis and contains a manifest error of assessment. The applicant disputes being currently linked to the undertaking Concord Management and Consulting LLC. She also disputes her son’s alleged association with Wagner Group and claims that, in any event, it cannot legitimately be inferred from the links to her son that she may have contributed to compromising the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the existence of a misuse of powers. According to the applicant, the true aim pursued through her listing is, in reality, indirectly to target her son Mr Yevgeniy Prigozhin.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that the lack of precision in the reasons for her listing prevent her from usefully challenging them.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that the restrictive measures applied to her are disproportionate in that they prevent the attainment of the objective pursued by the Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 42 I, p. 98).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 42 I, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 April 2022 — Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories v EUIPO — Arbora & Ausonia (InterMed Pharmaceutical Laboratories eva intima)

(Case T-197/22)

(2022/C 222/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SLU (Madrid, 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 InterMed Pharmaceutical Laboratories eva intima — Application for registration No 18 127 265

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2022 in Case R 1244/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision so long as it is appealed on its part;

— order EUIPO and ARBORA & AUSONIA, SLU, if it becomes intervener, to pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
b.

order the Commission to pay interest on the amount requested at paragraph (a) above for the period from 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the Commission), or alternatively from 28 April 2022 (the date of the present action), or, in the further alternative, from the date of judgment in the present action, up to the date on which the Commission actually pays the amount in pursuance of a judgment upholding the present action, at the interest rate applied by the ECB to refinancing operations increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court;
—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/301 of 24 February 2022 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not, and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the countervailing measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 on imports of GFF originating in Egypt by imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Narzieva v Council

(Case T-238/22)

(2022/C 257/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Saodat Narzieva (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— principally, annul: — Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, (1) in so far as it concerns Ms Narzieva; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, (2) in so far as it concerns Ms Narzieva; — Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022, (3) — Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4)

— in the alternative, annul: — Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns Ms Narzieva; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns Ms Narzieva; — Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; — Article 1(1)(f) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022;

— in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay Ms Narzieva the sum of EUR 20,000 under Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court for the costs she has incurred in defending her interests.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).

(3) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 May 2022 — Mordashov v Council

(Case T-248/22)

(2022/C 244/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alexey Mordashov (Cherepovets, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337/CFSP of 28 February 2022 (1) in so far as it lists the applicant under No 695 of the annex to that decision;

— annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 (2) in so far as it lists the applicant under No 695 of the annex to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

— In addition, the applicant reserves the right to seek compensation for material and non-material damage suffered as a result of the illegality of the contested acts.

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 the right to effective judicial protection and of the obligation to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 58, p. 1).
Action brought on 25 May 2022 — Abramovich v Council

(Case T-313/22)

(2022/C 266/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich (Nemchinovo, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 (1) of 15 March 2022 in so far as it includes the name of the applicant in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 (2) of 15 March 2022 in so far as it includes the name of the applicant in the Annex to Council Regulation (EU) No 2014/269 of 17 March 2014;

— order the Council to make a provisional payment of EUR 1 000 000 to the charitable foundation for victims of conflicts which is being established in connection with the sale of Chelsea FC, in respect of the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the administration’s obligation to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as to the Council’s reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment in so far as concerns the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights and unjustified interference in the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87 I, p. 44).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87 I, p. 1).
Action brought on 23 May 2022 — Aven v Council

(Case T-301/22)

(2022/C 257/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petr Aven (Virginia Water, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2022/337 (1) of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 (2) of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— 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.

1. First plea in law, alleging an error in assessment. The applicant claims, first, that none of the evidence put forward by the Council meets the requirements of the European case-law on the standard and quality of proof and, second, that none of the assertions in the Council’s statement of reasons is well-established and none therefore fits into criteria (a) to (d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, in the version then in force, to which explicit reference was made by the Council in its statement of reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging illegality of that criterion on account of a twofold infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims, first, that the criterion relied on by the Council is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective pursued and, second, that it was possible to employ less-restrictive measures.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the lack of a legal basis, on the ground that no sufficient link has been established between the category of individuals targeted by that criterion and the Russian Federation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessment, on the ground that the Council does not show that the applicant is a prominent or leading businessman or that he is involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022, L 58, p. 1).