ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Interfloat and GMB v Commission

(Case T-530/20)

(2020/C 329/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Interfloat Corp. (Ruggell, Lichtenstein) and GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (Tschernitz, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and R. Sangi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 3287 final of 26 May 2020 on the measures SA.39990 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) (ex/2014/FC) (ex 2014/CP) — implemented by Belgium for Ducatt NV; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.

The applicants submit that the Commission was not permitted to close the formal investigation procedure that was opened following a complaint made by the applicants. Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) (‘the regulation on State aid procedure’) provides for a specific and exhaustive procedure for the closure of the formal investigation procedure. It requires, in particular, that the formal investigation procedure be concluded by means of one of the four decisions exhaustively set out in Article 9. Closure of a formal investigation procedure is envisaged only if the Member State concerned withdraws its notification (Article 10). In the contested decision the Commission disregarded the wording, scheme and purpose of Article 108(2) TFEU and of the regulation on State aid procedure and thus the applicants’ procedural rights in the formal investigation procedure. There is in fact no sufficient justification for the closure of the procedure.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH)

(Case T-566/20)

(2020/C 371/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Residencial Palladium SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

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: Figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH — EU trade mark No 8 564 701

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2020 in Case R 1542/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No o8 564 701invalid;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the Board of Appeal erred in basing its decision on the applicant not having duly substantiated the use and the more than mere local significance of the earlier unregistered sign GRAND HOTEL PALLADDIUM.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ right to legal professional privilege stems separately from the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR (Article 7 of the Charter) and the right to defence under Article 6 of the ECHR (Article 47 of the Charter). The protection of legal professional privilege under the ECHR and the Charter does not depend, it is argued, on the purpose and content of the relevant communications, but only on the identity of their participants.
4.

Fourth plea, alleging that by refusing to grant a conditional MA on the ground that ‘the benefit-risk balance of Hopveus [was] not favourable’, the European Commission failed to comply with the framework laid down by Commission Regulation No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and thereby vitiated the contested decision by breaching the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. According to the applicant, that conclusion is based on an error of law and a manifest error of assessment, since Regulation No 507/2006 does not make the grant of a conditional MA on the submission by the applicant of exhaustive clinical data free of methodological limitations. Conditional MAs ‘are based on data that is less complete than that normally required and are subject to specific obligations’. In the present case, those studies were even reviewed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (‘the PRAC’) and by the CHMP in the context of the annual evaluation of sodium oxybate based medicines and their validity was confirmed by that evaluation and by the European Commission in relation to the bioequivalent medicine Alcover. The applicant claims that the EMA could not therefore consider that the limitations of the studies submitted by the applicant, some of which were validated in a 2010 scientific opinion, were major and decisive as regards a conditional MA when similar criticisms had not been made in the context of unconditional MAs granted to competitors.
—

in any case, grant the following claims: — award damages in relation to the violation of the applicant’s physical and mental integrity and his right of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, his right to good administration and his right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, amounting to EUR 25 000; — award damages in relation to the non-material prejudice suffered by the applicant, amounting to EUR 25 000; — award compensation for medical costs (not reimbursed under the EIB medical insurance) as a result of the damage caused by the defendant and suffered by the applicant in an amount of EUR 200 (including VAT); and — order repayment of legal fees for the current proceedings, amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 15 000.
Fifth plea in law, alleging failure by the selection board to state reasons in the context of a review and infringement of the right to an effective remedy, the principle of sound administration and the rights of the defence, in so far as the selection board adopted a standardised statement of reasons from which, it is claimed, it is not apparent whether the applicant’s competencies were assessed or what criteria were in fact adopted in that regard.
—

the Commission took more than 5 years without full transparency on the reviews and its refusal to allow the applicant to submit additional requests and/or to comply with its requests for information and motivation. The reporting done by the Commission was incomplete, not accurate and not in compliance with the legislation of the evaluation, review and control of subsidies.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA)

(Case T-636/20)

(2020/C 443/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

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 word mark JUVÉDERM VOLUMA –European Union trade mark No 6 547 301

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2020 in Case R 1016/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law
Action brought on 16 October 2020 — Validity v Commission

(Case T-640/20)

(2021/C 9/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: B. Van Vooren, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 5540 final of 6 August 2020 addressed to the Co-executive Director of the Validity Foundation, pursuant to Regulation 1049/2001 (1);

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the right to participation in public life, in conjunction with the right to independent living and integration of persons with disabilities (Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 29 and 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision constitutes an infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, as read in light of Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(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).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 80 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union leading to an error of assessment and misuse of powers. The applicant argues, inter alia, that the defendant failed to take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision.
Action brought on 30 October 2020 — NV v eu-LISA

(Case T-661/20)

(2021/C 19/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NV (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 3 February 2020 insofar as it imposes a reprimand on the applicant;

— if need be, annul the decision of 3 August 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 9 April 2020;

— order financial compensation for non-material harm, which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at the sum of EUR 5 000;

— order reimbursement of the incurred 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, a plea of illegality in relation to the decision of the Management Board (2015-014) on administrative inquiries of 28 January 2015.

2. Second plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of the defence together with violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to be heard and furthermore breach of the duty of confidentiality.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 12, 12a, 17 and 19 of the Staff Regulations, together with breach of the principle of good administration and furthermore manifest errors of assessment.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, with regard to the failure of the administration to consider the health problems of the applicant, the appraisal report for 2019 and all the legal criteria for evaluating the performance of the applicant.
Action brought on 18 November 2020 — OG v EIB

(Case T-695/20)

(2021/C 35/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

and accordingly,

— order the EIB to pay 16 months’ salary and 6 months’ severance pay, i.e. the sum of EUR 317 668 at the time of the initial claim for compensation of 23 October 2019, an amount to be updated at the time of payment;

— order the EIB to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000;

— where appropriate, annul the decision rejecting the claim for compensation, dated 9 March and received on 10 March 2020;

— where appropriate, annul the decision implicitly dismissing the appeal to a higher court, taken on 8 August 2020;

— order, by way of a measure of organisation of procedure, access to the SSTL report;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action seeking to invoke the liability of the European Investment Bank (EIB), on account of a series of events which, taken individually or collectively, reveal wrongful conduct on the part of the EIB which has caused her harm and illness, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breaches of the duties to have regard for the welfare of officials, of sound administration and of transparency allegedly committed by the EIB and, more generally, breach of the general duty of care and diligence incumbent on every employer.

In the present case, the applicant claims that, had the EIB regularly taken the appropriate security measures in its building, the tragic suicide of a trainee would not have happened. She also claims that, had the EIB assumed its responsibilities with regard to that suicide and fulfilled its obligations of transparency and support, openness and assistance in respect of it agents and, in particular, those such as the applicant who were affected by that suicide, the applicant would not today be an agent in invalidity, in grief and whose career and recognition of her merits no longer exist in the eyes of the employer whom she has nevertheless served loyally.

The applicant argues that the facts also show that the EIB, far from behaving like a responsible and protective employer, engaged in a policy of discrediting and devaluing the applicant following the trainee’s suicide, to the point of her physical and mental breakdown. After 30 years of an exemplary career, the applicant feels she has been treated as a mediocre and dishonest employee.
2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of proportionality, as well as an abuse of rights. The applicant claims in that regard that the defendant’s attitude only serves to worsen his medical situation, which is already extremely fragile, on the ground that the contested decisions, by denying the validity of his two medical certificates for the periods from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 and by threatening him with disciplinary proceedings, seriously exacerbate his general state of anxiety.
Action brought on 15 December 2020 — Aurubis v Commission

(Case T-729/20)

(2021/C 44/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aurubis AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and J. Hoss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 December 2020 (Ref. Ares (2020)7439507 — 08/12/2020); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of 8 December 2020, by which the Commission refused, in the context of interlocutory proceedings before the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin and an application to that effect by the Umweltbundesamt, to participate in the transfer of emission allowances to provisionally secure the applicant’s entitlement to free allocation of emission allowances for the purposes of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the preliminary ruling in Case C-271/20.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the Commission of 8 December 2020 affects the applicant directly and individually. It therefore has legal standing to bring proceedings.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in the context of granting interim relief on account of national court proceedings, is obliged by the principle of ensuring effective judicial protection, enshrined in EU law, to participate in securing any entitlement to allocation of emission allowances from being lost.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2003/87/EC (1) and Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 (2) form the regulatory framework for such participation and the transfer of emission allowances to national accounts.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 of 2 May 2013 establishing a Union Registry pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Decisions No 280/2004/EC and No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulations (EU) No 920/2010 and No 1193/2011 (OJ 2013 L 122, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural guarantees set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and infringement of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant claims that the way in which the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) takes decisions regarding the promotion or reclassification of temporary agents of groups secretariats adversely affects the procedural guarantees of Article 41 of the Charter. This is true of all the decisions not to promote or reclassify the applicant since her entry into service. The applicant states that, first, those decisions lack any reasoning and, second, no legislation, general decision or communication indicates which criteria are accepted and applied to identify who amongst the temporary agents will be promoted or reclassified.
—

annul Article 1(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, in that the European Commission infringed Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, by imposing an anti-dumping duty in a discriminatory manner by granting an exemption on the basis of the end-use customs regime;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Estonian economy, that Nordica is eligible to aid, and that the conditions regarding distortions to competition, the State’s exit and restructuring were satisfied, and by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 January 2021 — About You v EUIPO — Safe-1 Immobilieninvest (Y/O/U)

(Case T-23/21)

(2021/C 79/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: About You GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Safe-1 Immobilieninvest GmbH (Mauer, Austria)

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 Y/O/U — European Union trade mark No 10 226 884

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2020 in Case R 527/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— hold an oral hearing;

— annul the contested decision with the consequence that EUIPO shall revoke the EUTM entirely;

— order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear its/their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceeding before the General Court and in the appellate proceeding before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the procedural requirements of evidence in terms of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Power Horse Energy Drinks v EUIPO — Robot Energy Europe (UNSTOPPABLE)

(Case T-3/21)

(2021/C 62/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Power Horse Energy Drinks GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: M. Woller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robot Energy Europe (Mijas, Spain)

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: EU word mark UNSTOPPABLE — EU trade mark No 14 555 271

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2020 in Case R 232/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by the applicant in relation to the goods: — Class 5: Nutritional supplements; Health food supplements made principally of vitamins; Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix; Vitamin preparations in the nature of food supplements; Vitamin drinks; Vitamin preparations; Vitamin tablets; Vitamins and vitamin preparations; — Class 32: Non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit juices; Energy drinks; Protein-enriched sports beverages; Sports drinks; and in so far as it orders the applicant to bear the costs of the invalidity proceedings and of the appeal proceedings;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in the proceedings, to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;