ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard resulting from denial of access to the file and denial of the opportunity to be heard before the final decision was adopted, infringement of the fundamental right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter, infringement of the general principle of the right to be heard, infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, and existence in the present case of a failure to state reasons — The complainants had asked to access the documentation sent to the Commission by the Slovenian authorities and to meet the Commission’s services in order to provide any clarifications necessary, particularly with regard to the impact that the measures complained of would have on competition and on trade between Member States. The Commission adopted the contested decision without first sending the documents requested and without convening a meeting with the complainants. By acting in this way, the Commission breached Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, interpreted in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter and with the general principle of the right to be heard. — The ability of the complainants to submit comments on the Commission’s preliminary assessment, in accordance with Article 24(2), necessarily implies the right to access the file and to request a meeting with the Commission. Since they are closely linked, those prerogatives actually represent corollaries of the same fundamental right. There was no justification, in the present case, for the denial of such rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/39

Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Star Television Productions v EUIPO — Marc Dorcel (STAR)

(Case T-797/17)

(2018/C 042/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Star Television Productions Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marc Dorcel SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘STAR’ — EU trade mark No 1 992 510

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 1519/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— refuse the application for revocation and;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant in connection with this appeal.

Plea in law
—

Annul Decision (C(2017 7119 FINAL) of the Secretarial-General of the European Commission dated 18 October 2017 by which communication of the decision of the European Commission Directorate-General for Competition notified to the French authorities on 22 March 2017, concerning the protocol for indemnifying EDF in respect of the closure of the nuclear power plant of Fessenheim was refused;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/42

Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Carbon System Verwaltungs v EUIPO (LIGHTBOUNCE)

(Case T-825/17)

(2018/C 052/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Carbon System Verwaltungs GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Gilch and L. Petri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LIGHTBOUNCE’ — Application No 15 152 028

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2017 in Case R 2301/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2017 (R 2301/2016-1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/44

Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)

(Case T-804/17)

(2018/C 042/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark — Application for registration No 15 625 437

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2017 in Case R 1887/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/41

Action brought on 29 December 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission

(Case T-834/17)

(2018/C 072/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: A. Ryan, solicitor, F. Hoseinian and W. Knibbeler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— compensate UPS for the damages incurred, in the amount of EUR 1 742 billion and applicable interest;

— compensate UPS for the taxes that will be imposed on the damages obtained, on the basis of the tax rate applicable on the day of judgment; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation under Article 340 TFEU for the loss suffered as a consequence of Commission Decision C(2013) 431, Case COMP/M.6570 UPS/TNT Express (‘the Decision’) which was annulled by the General Court on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13.

In support of its application, the applicant claims that the Decision is tainted with serious breaches of rules of law that are intended to confer rights on UPS. According to the applicant, each breach individually underpinned the Decision and prevented the applicant from acquiring TNT and from materialising the benefits associated with that proposed transaction.

The applicant claims that these breaches are a serious breach of the law regarding (1) the price concentration analysis; (2) the efficiencies analysis; (3) the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness; and (4) the assessment of the closeness of competition made in the Decision.

According to the applicant, each of these breaches, individually or considered together, is responsible for the unlawful Decision and establishes the Union’s liability under Article 340 TFEU.

The applicant further claims that these breaches in turn caused the applicant’s loss because had they not taken place, UPS would have acquired TNT. Without any one of the erroneous price concentration analysis, the efficiencies analysis, the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness and the closeness of competition assessment, so the applicant claims, no ordinarily prudent and diligent administration would have prohibited the proposed Transaction.

According to the applicant, it should therefore be put in the position it would have been in had the unlawful Decision not been adopted by way of compensation under Article 340 TFEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/21

Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-833/17)

(2018/C 063/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1(2)-(4), 2, 3, and 4 of Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) insofar as they concern the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the applicants’ rights of defence.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU and the obligation to state reasons because it failed to apply the market economy operator (MEO) test and instead applied the Altmark test to the commercial relationship between Cagliari airport and the applicants, including the alleged aid payments, even though these were made on the basis of contracts concluded prior to the adoption of Law 10/2010.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principle of non-discrimination by not applying the MEO test to the agreements between Cagliari airport and the applicants, on the ground that the Sardinian Region was only a minority shareholder of Cagliari airport.

4. Fourth plea, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to identify Cagliari airport as a beneficiary of aid.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that, even if it is assumed that Cagliari airport was not a beneficiary of Law 10/2010, the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it should have applied the MEO test to the Sardinian Region’s conduct, even under its own assumption that Cagliari airport was a passive ‘vehicle’ for the Region’s funds.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that, even if it is further assumed that Law 10/2010 concerns Services of General Economic Interest and the MEO test is inapplicable, the contested decision would nevertheless violate Article 107(1) TFEU because it erroneously considered payments for marketing services as a hidden subsidy for the operation of aeronautical routes.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to show selectivity.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that, even if the Court were to find that aid existed, the Commission infringed Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU by committing a manifest error in its instructions to the Member State regarding the determination of the quantum of recoverable aid.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked the power to impose that Lufthansa could acquire aircraft from third-party lessors that these lessors had leased to NIKI or its parent company Air Berlin on the condition that Lufthansa make those aircraft available on market terms to NIKI or an alternative acquirer of NIKI if the NIKI Transaction were to fail for whatever reason (‘the Condition’) under Article 7(3) ECMR (1), because aircraft purchases do not constitute partial implementation. The applicant puts forward that the Commission lacked any power under Article 7(3) of the ECMR to impose the Condition, as Lufthansa’s purchase of aircraft from third parties was unrelated to the NIKI Transaction (2) and did not constitute a partial ‘implementation’ of the planned acquisition of NIKI that would have required a derogation from the stand-still provision in Article 7(1) of the ECMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/52

Action brought on 26 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (LIEBLINGSWEIN)

(Case T-55/18)

(2018/C 104/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NGV GmbH (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘LIEBLINGSWEIN’ — Application for registration No 15 326 515

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2018 in Case R 291/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/22

Action brought on 17 January 2018 — OCU v ECB

(Case T-15/18)

(2018/C 083/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision.

— Order the ECB to disclose to the applicant the full or confidential version of the documents.

— Order the ECB to pay the costs incurred.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks the annulment of the Decision of 17 November 2017, registered under number LS/MD/17/428, dismissing the applicant’s ‘confirmatory application for access to ECB documents’ of 14 September 2017 and an order for the disclosure of the documents requested, relating to the resolution of the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, based on the fundamental right set out in Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, namely the right to good administration, in the form of access to documents for the proper exercise of the right of defence.
2.

The second plea in law is based on a claimed infringement of Article 31(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (ΕC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005, and of Article 52(2) and (3) of Regulation (ΕU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013, read together with Articles 12(1) to (6) and 8 of Commission Delegated Regulation (ΕU) No 907/2014 of 6 August 2014, and also an infringement of the Commission Guidelines in documents VI/5330797 and C(2015)3675 final/8-6-2015. It is further claimed that it is not permissible to accumulate two corrections for the same reason and that the principle of proportionality was infringed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/50

Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (SOLIDPOWER)

(Case T-40/18)

(2018/C 104/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘SOLIDPOWER’ — Application for registration No 1 310 671

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2017 in Case R 1182/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the Applicant.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/36

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline)

(Case T-103/18)

(2018/C 134/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: S & V Technologies GmbH (Hennigsdorf, 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: Smoothline AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

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 ‘Smoothline’ — International registration No 958 169 designating the European Union

Proceedings before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 115/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/42

Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)

(Case T-59/18)

(2018/C 112/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FEMIVIA’ — Application for registration No 13 148 986

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 280/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs both at EUIPO and at the General Court.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/32

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Cabell v EUIPO — Zorro Productions (ZORRO)

(Case T-96/18)

(2018/C 134/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Robert W. Cabell (Renton, Washington, United States) (represented by: K. Bröcker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zorro Productions, Inc. (Berkeley, California, United States)

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 ZORRO — EU trade mark No 5 399 787

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 1637/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the application for a declaration of partial invalidity of European Union trade mark registration No 5 399 787 for all the contested goods and services;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/29

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)

(Case T-89/18)

(2018/C 134/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, 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: European Union word mark ‘Café del Sol’ — European Union trade mark No 6 105 985

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1095/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision and declare the opposition based on the earlier trade mark belonging to the opponent, Mr Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, in Class 42 of the International Classification, well founded.

— Uphold the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark application No 6/105/985 CAFÉ DEL SOL, filed by the German company GASTRO & SOUL GmbH, in respect of ‘services for the provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation, catering’ in Class 43 of the International Classification, on the ground that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as a result of the coexistence of the marks at issue given the strong verbal similarity and the identity in terms of their application. In the alternative, if the General Court lacks jurisdiction in that regard, it should refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, provided that the opposition is deemed to be well founded.

— In the further alternative, (i) annul the contested decision because of inconsistency and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and legal certainty by having expressly denied him the possibility of submitting a full translation of the opponent’s earlier trade mark in the context of Case R 1095/2017-4, thereby defeating one of the main purposes of the referral of the case back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal ordered by the General Court on 13 December 2016 in Case T-548/15, and (ii) order a further referral back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal to remedy that situation and settle the dispute.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/68

Action brought on 21 February 2018 — Avio v European Commission

(Case T-139/18)

(2018/C 142/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Avio SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— regarding the substance, annul Commission Decision C(2016) 4621 final of 20 July 2016 concerning the authorisation, under Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, of the concentration ‘ASL/Arianespace’, Case COMP/M.7724;

— by way of a measure of inquiry, order the Commission, pursuant to Articles 88, 89 and 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure, to submit the documents referred to in Section III of the present application;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against Commission Decision C(2016) 4621 final of 20 July 2016 concerning the authorisation, under Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, of the concentration ‘ASL/Arianespace’, Case COMP/M.7724, as published in its non-confidential version on 11 December 2017.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, failure to conduct a proper investigation and failure to state adequate reasons — The Commission made a manifest error of assessment, failed to conduct a proper investigation and failed to state adequate reasons by not correctly analysing the risk of foreclosure in the market for launchers operated by Arianespace, in particular with regard to capacity, inducements and anti-competitive effects;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/43

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)

(Case T-114/18)

(2018/C 152/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Miles-Bramwell Executive Services Ltd (Alfreton, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Mellor, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark FREE — Application for registration No 15 081 508

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 2166/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;