ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 11 October 2019 – DD v FRA

(Case T-703/19)

(2019/C 432/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DD (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant the applicant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in this appeal, estimated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 50 000;

— annul the decision of the Director the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 21 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

— if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director of 24 June 2019, rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the enquirers did not have a mandate to investigate a possible breach by the applicant of Article 17 or Article 11 of the Staff Regulations or to investigate the applicant’s email of 5 March 2014 and that the administrative enquiry has no legal basis. The FRA violated Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations and Article 2(1) of Executive Board (EB) decision 2013/01.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the opening of the administrative enquiry was not based on a reasonable suspicion of a disciplinary offence based on prima facie evidence.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the absence of information to the applicant about the opening of the administrative enquiry and the absence of communication of the related decisions when requested by him are unlawful.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the duration of the enquiry and of the pre-disciplinary procedure was excessive and unreasonable.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision closing the enquiry was not reasoned and did not comply with Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the enquiry report contains an error of law and a manifest error of assessment.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of confidentiality.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. (1)

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty of care, lack of objectivity and impartiality and misuse of powers.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 November 2019 – Clouds Sky v EUIPO – The Cloud Networks (Wi-Fi Powered by The Cloud)

(Case T-738/19)

(2020/C 10/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clouds Sky GmbH (Köln, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Cloud Networks Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 Wi-Fi Powered by The Cloud –European Union trade mark No 9 436 817

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2019 in Case R 696/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that, even assuming that the CFC measures in question prima facie constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the contested decision wrongly concluded that there was no justification that could apply to defend the compatibility of the measures in question with EU State aid rules. In addition, the contested decision is irrational and inconsistent, in that the Commission has correctly accepted that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified in cases where the only reason for a CFC charge to apply under the counterfactual of the Chapter 5 would be the ‘UK connected capital’ test, on the basis that that test may be excessively difficult to operate in practice, but at the same time, and without providing adequate reasoning, the Commission contends that the said Chapter 9 is never justified in cases where the significant people functions test would cause a CFC charge to apply under the said Chapter 5. In fact, the significant people functions test is excessively difficult to apply in practice, such that the Commission should have found the said Chapter 9 to be justified in the context of that test as well and, hence, it should have concluded that there is no State aid.
—

annul the decisions of the Commission of 13 August and 26 September 2019 refusing in part access to the documents referred to in the applicant’s application and confirmative application of 4 December 2018, registered on 28 February 2019, on the basis of the exception laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 relating to privacy and the integrity of the individual;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to the file. The applicant claims in that respect that no follow-up was given to his repeated requests that he be sent the documents exchanged between the office of the Commission member concerned and the Directorate General for Human Resources and Security further to the judgment of 10 January 2019, RY v Commission (T-160/17, EU:T:2019:1)
2.

Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of Article 1 of the contested decision on the following grounds, in so far as it concerns a determination that the GFE constitutes a selective advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, resulting, in particular, from the following facts: i. As regards the relevant reference framework: a. the Commission’s wrong identification of the reference framework as being composed solely of the CFC rules and/or solely Chapter 5 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act; b. the Commission’s wrong determination of the objective of the reference system as being solely to tax profits arising from UK activities and assets that have been artificially diverted from the UK without due regard to whether the relevant targeted transactions actually give rise to risk of erosion of the UK tax base. ii. As regards the determination of a derogation from the reference framework: a. the Commission’s wrong assessment of the relevance and importance of significant people functions; b. the Commission’s wrong assessment of the comparability of qualifying loan relationships with loans (i) to UK-resident related parties and (ii) to third parties; c. the Commission’s unlawful reliance on Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164; (1) d. the fact that the Commission’s assessment of the comparable risks to infringement of freedom of establishment for exempted and non-exempted categories of CFC was mistaken. iii. As regards the justification for the alleged derogation: a. the Commission’s wrong decision that the justification relating to the need for the system to be manageable and administrable did not extend to significant people functions; b. the Commission’s wrong decision that the GFE was not justified by reference to compliance with freedom of establishment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipement)

(Case T-842/19)

(2020/C 45/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0007

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1010/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;

— to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;

— order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 November 2019 – Austria Tabak v EUIPO – Mignot & De Block (AIR)

(Case T-800/19)

(2020/C 45/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Austria Tabak GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mignot & De Block BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark AIR – European Union trade mark No 2 309 110

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 in Case R 1665/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 December 2019 – Franz Schröder v EUIPO – RDS Design (MONTANA)

(Case T-856/19)

(2020/C 54/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück-Nordhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark)

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 word mark MONTANA – International registration designating the European Union No 869 610

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 in Case R 2394/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity and declare the International trademark registration No. 869 610 invalid for the European Union for the contested goods and services;

— order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Einkaufsbüro Deutscher Eisenhändler v EUIPO — Tigges (TOOLINEO)

(Case T-877/19)

(2020/C 61/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Einkaufsbüro Deutscher Eisenhändler GmbH (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tigges Rechtsanwälte and Steuerberater Partnerschaft mbB (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark TOOLINEO — Application for registration No 13 959 481

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2019 in Case R 34/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of article 11(2) of Annex VIII of Staff Regulations and Article 7(1) of the GIP: — the transferable pensionable years should be calculated on the basis of the amount actually transferred minus the capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the actual date of the transfer; — the PMO erred by calculating the transferable pensions rights based solely on the amount provided by the national administration in the provisional decision while the amount actually transferred did not correspond uniquely to the capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the date of the actual transfer.
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination on ground of disability and of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation, violation of Article 21 of the Charter, of the United Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations and, violation of the duty of care.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 December 2019 — Kerangus v EUIPO (ΑΠΛΑ)

(Case T-882/19)

(2020/C 68/59)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Kerangus Holdings Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the figurative mark ΑΠΛΑ! — Application for registration No 15 554 918

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2019 in Case R 1035/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action;

— annul the contested decision;

— grant trade mark application No. 015554918/17.06.2016‘ΑΠΛΑ! and representation’ for all the goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 43

— order EUIPO to pay the costs pursuant to Article 190(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, that is to say, inappropriate measures for enforcement of the annulment judgment of the General Court, and infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem .
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 January 2020 – Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE)

(Case T-2/20)

(2020/C 68/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich, 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 figurative mark BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE – International registration designating the European Union No 1 202 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 in Case R 418/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— revoke the contested decision;

— order the defendant and, in case Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG decides to intervene in the present proccedings, Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 February 2020 — Group v EUIPO — Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)

(Case T-57/20)

(2020/C 87/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Group EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Dragiev and A. Andreev, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kosta Iliev (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL’ in the colours purple, grey, black, violet, orange, red, and yellow — Application for registration No 10 640 449

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 in Case R 2059/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO, and the intervener, if any, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

In that regard, the applicants submit that, in accordance with that Act, the European electoral procedure is governed, in each Member State, by national provisions and that, consequently, Articles 219 to 224 of the Ley Orgánica del Régimen Electoral General (Organic Law on the General Electoral System) are applicable. Specifically, the latter provision provides that within five days, elected candidates must swear or pledge to abide by the Constitution and that, where that is not done, the seat will be declared vacant. Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín have not at any point appeared before the Junta Electoral Central (Central Electoral Board) in order to swear or pledge to abide by the Constitution.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Kneissl Holding v EUIPO — LS 9 (KNEISSL)

(Case T-65/20)

(2020/C 103/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kneissl Holding GmbH (Ebbs, Austria) (represented by: O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LS 9 GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark KNEISSL — EU trade mark No 291 377

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 in Case R 2265/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked EU trade mark No 291 377 KNEISSL for the following goods: ‘sports bags’ in Class 18 and ‘sportswear, leisurewear, weather protection clothing; ski suits; ski trousers; ski anoraks, underwear, headgear’ in Class 25, and dismiss the corresponding application for revocation;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the decision refusing to admit the applicant to the internal competition due to the lack of minimum grade. The applicant alleges that the minimum grade is not the real indicator of the competencies. As a result, the requirement of a minimum grade prevents the recruitment of experienced and qualified candidates.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 February 2020 — Puma v EUIPO — CAMäleon (PUMA-System)

(Case T-71/20)

(2020/C 114/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. GonzálezBueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung GmbH (Dettenhausen, Germany)

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 PUMA-System — Application for registration No 16 786 907

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2019 in Case R 404/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Breach of the principle of sound administration;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b), Article 94 and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-109/20)

(2020/C 129/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf 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) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 5 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) [No 1183/2005] 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-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.