ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/31

Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale

(Case T-268/17)

(2017/C 231/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 101 370,94 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 632462 ‘EASIER-Experimental Acoustic Subsonic wind tunnel Investigation of the advanced geared turbofan Regional aircraft integrating HLD innovative low-noise design’, plus the amount of EUR 524,91 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;

— order the defendant to pay EUR 9,72 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.

The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project EASIER and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 101 370,94 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.

The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness and the principle of equal treatment. — The applicant puts forward that the contested decision violates the prohibition of arbitrariness by excluding undertakings from the operative part of the contested decision which, according to its statement of reasons, have taken part in the same behaviour as the addressees of the contested decision. — The applicant further puts forward that the contested decision violates the principle of equal treatment by sanctioning the applicant for an infringement and imposing a fine on the applicant, and exposing it to civil liability, while undertakings are excluded from the operative part which, according to its statement of reasons, have taken part in the same behaviour as the addressees of the contested decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/46

Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (4000)

(Case T-303/17)

(2017/C 231/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘4000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 548

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 654/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Decision’; OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Regulation’; OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicants, and, as a consequence, annul the Decision (CFSP) 2016/411, insofar as it applies to the applicant, and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/47

Action brought on 15 April 2017 — Mémora Servicios Funerarios v EUIPO — Chatenoud (MEMORAME)

(Case T-221/17)

(2017/C 239/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mémora Servicios Funerarios SLU (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: C. Marí Aguilar and J. Gallego Jiménez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Georges Chatenoud (Thiviers, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MEMORAME’ – Application for registration No 12 929 071

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10/02/2017 in Case R 1308/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of EUIPO of 10 February 2017 in Case R 1308/2016-4 which in part granted the application for EU trade mark No 12929071 ‘MEMORAME’ and, consequently, reject in its entirety EU trade mark application No 12929071 ‘MEMORAME’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in accordance with Article 87(2) and (3) of the Rules [of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991].

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision SA.26763 (ex 2012/NN) of 2 February 2017 concerning presumed aid granted to public transport undertakings by the Île-de-France region (C(2017) 439 final; ‘the contested decision’) held that the scheme examined constituted a new aid scheme. In that regard, the applicant puts forward the following complaints: — disregard of Article 1(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EU) No 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; ‘Regulation No 2015/1589’), insofar as the legal basis of the scheme examined predates the Treaty of Rome; — insufficient reasoning in the light of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation No 2015/1589; — error in fact and in law as regards the date of liberalisation of the market.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/48

Action brought on 16 June 2017 — HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement v Commission

(Case T-380/17)

(2017/C 249/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) and Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler, M. Raible, U. Soltész, G. Wecker and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul decision of the European Commission C(2017) 1650 final of 5 April 2017 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in Case M. 7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission was not competent to decide on the Transaction since the transaction did not have a Union dimension. The Commission erred in law and infringed Art. 1 of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (1) (‘EUMR’) by considering HeidelbergCement and Schwenk — rather than the direct acquirer Duna-Dráva Cement — as ‘undertakings concerned’.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2 and 8 EUMR and committed manifest errors of assessment and violated its duty to state reasons in defining the relevant geographic market.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 2 (2) and (3) EUMR by prohibiting a transaction without establishing a significant impediment to effective competition in a substantial part of the internal market.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in the competitive assessment of the effects of the transaction.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and committed manifest errors of assessment in the assessment and rejection of the proposed remedy.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several procedural errors and thus violated essential procedural requirements, the Applicants’ rights of defence and their fundamental rights, as well as the principle of good administration and its duty of care.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked competence to prohibit the acquisition of Cemex Hungary after it had referred the Hungarian part of the transaction for review by the Hungarian competition authority pursuant to Art. 4 (4) EUMR.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004, L 24, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/33

Action brought on 21 June 2017 — Chypre v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

(Case T-384/17)

(2017/C 269/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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: EU figurative mark in colour containing the word element ‘BBQLOUMI’ — Application for registration No 13 069 034

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2017 in Case R 496/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
—

in the alternative, should the General Court not order the annulment in full of Decision C(2017) 1742 final on the basis of the first plea in law: — annul the first paragraph of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b), Article 1(3)(b) and Article 1(4)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that the finding of a single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM is based on evidence submitted by Lufthansa in the context of its application for immunity under the 2002 Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with the applicant’s second plea in law; — annul the first paragraph of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b), Article 1(3)(b) and Article 1(4)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that those provisions exclude from the scope of the single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM airlines referred to in the grounds of the decision as being involved in the practices relating to that infringement, and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with its third plea in law; — annul the first paragraph of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b) and Article 1(3)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that those provisions declare that the single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM includes inbound freight traffic entering the EEA (inbound EEA traffic), and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with the applicant’s fourth plea in law;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/55

Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Eduard Meier v EUIPO — Calzaturificio Elisabet (Safari Club)

(Case T-418/17)

(2017/C 277/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eduard Meier GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Schicker and M. Knitter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Calzaturificio Elisabet Srl (Monte Urano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Safari Club’ — Application for registration No 13 186 036

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 in Case R 1158/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/35

Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS)

(Case T-456/17)

(2017/C 309/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. Acsinte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibryam Dzhihangir (Silistra, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Djili soy original DS’ — Application for registration No 8 810 558

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 03 May 2017 in Case R 516/2011-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition against the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’ and/or to cancel the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’;

— in subsidiary, annul the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal dated 03/05/2017 concerning the appeal R 516/2011-5 and to order the resumption of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and further to order the Board of Appeal to maintain the suspension of its proceedings until a written, motivated and signed final decision on the appeal for annulment, docket no. 2794/1/2016, is provided to the Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO and DZHIHANGIR Ibryam to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 1, 1st Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights;

— Infringement of Rule 20(7)(a) and (c) of the Commission Regulation (EC) no.2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) no. 40/94 on the Community trade mark;

— Mutatis mutandis article 53(2)(c) and (d) of the Council Regulation (EC) no. 207/2009 in respect of the applicant’s copyright for the picture of the package ‘Djili’ written in red letters on a blue package with the figure of a parrot and in respect of the applicant’s rights to use a trade name for products in the sense of the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Case C-17/06 ‘Celine’;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights and of principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — As a consequence of the unlawful and manifestly incorrect classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone as a Category 1B carcinogenic substance in accordance with Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation, there was a breach in particular of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its property and the principle of legal certainty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/19

Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v SRB

(Case T-481/17)

(2017/C 318/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno (Madrid, Spain) and SFL — Stiftung für Forschung und Lehre (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez and A. Muñoz Aranguren, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v SRB.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/36

Action brought on 26 July 2017 — TP v Commission

(Case T-464/17)

(2017/C 309/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: TP (represented by: W. Limuti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and withdraw the contested decision and annul all consequent acts stemming therefrom, including implied acts and acts not known to the applicant, cancelling all consequent effects adversely affecting the applicant and impacting on his legal and financial interests, and ensure that the matter will be treated in such a way as to enable the applicant, after having obtained the necessary information, to set out his views, so that the new decision may be taken in compliance with the principles of trust, legality and transparency;

— acknowledge, in upholding the present action, the damage suffered by the official in the meantime, in particular not only the material damage but also the non-material mental and physical damage as set out in the medical and legal expert report on the events in question, which acknowledges moderately serious existential damage and records that the applicant has trouble adjusting coupled with anxiety and chronic depression, caused by trauma suffered in the workplace and quantifiable at 20 %.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant contesting the deduction made by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (the PMO) in respect of his salary following the judgment of the Tribunale di Treviso (District Court, Treviso) finalising the divorce between the applicant and his ex-wife.

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

1. Infringement of the guaranteed right of an official to be heard and to set out his views.

2. Infringement of the applicant’s right to obtain information relevant to his defence.

3. Infringement of the applicant’s right to obtain an indication of the reasons why he could not receive the relevant information.

4. Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1) of 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 (1) and, consequently, infringement of the applicant’s right to the information concerning the pending procedure against him and failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons for the decisions taken.

5. Infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and, consequently, infringement of the applicant’s right to be defended and assisted by the institution against attacks by other persons.

6. Existence of mental and physical damage to the applicant’s person and a corresponding causal link between the conduct of the administration and the damage suffered.

(1) OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 338/18

Action brought on 17 August 2017 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Albea Services (ALBÉA)

(Case T-562/17)

(2017/C 338/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt Verwaltungs-GmbH (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Albea Services (Gennevilliers, France)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘ALBÉA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 210 553

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 in Case R 1870/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 May 2017 (Appeal No R 1870/2016-1) and, by the way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark; alternatively

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 May 2017 (Appeal No R 1870/2016-1) and, to remit the case to the Office for Harmonization; alternatively

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 May 2017 (Appeal No R 1870/2016-1)

Plea in law