ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/33

Action brought on 4 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission

(Case T-113/15)

(2015/C 155/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, in whole or in part, Commission Implementing Decisions C(2014) 9805 final, C(2014) 9806 final, C(2014) 9807 final, C(2014) 9808 final, C(2014) 9811 final, C(2014) 9812 final and C(2014) 9816 final, of 18 December 2014, concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made an error in law, resulting from a breach and/or an erroneous interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (1) and/or a manifest error of assessment in finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant, including for the purposes of judicial review, for the purposes of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation. The Applicant also challenges the consequential finding that a full deduction for all reported sales costs and profit, including export-related costs and a reasonable profit of an unrelated importer, from the constructed export price was warranted;

2. Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(10) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (2) and a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s deduction of the anti-dumping duties from the constructed export price. According to the Applicant, even by following the Commission’s methodology, the Commission should have found that the conditions of Article 11(10) were met at least as regards a part of the amounts applied for. The second plea also argues for a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, resulting from the Commission’s methodology for assessing whether the duties are duly reflected in the resale price, which was different from the methodology used in the last investigation which led to the duty;

3. Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (3) and Article 18.3.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, which occurred when the Commission, for the purpose of determining constructed normal values, applied a new methodology and could not justify that methodology by any relevant change in circumstances.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009.
—

The applicant puts forward that according to Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code, should uncertainty arise, an agreement is to be interpreted against he who stipulated it and in favor of he who contracted the obligation. The contractual rules applicable to FP6 result from ‘standard’ clauses established by the European Commission, to which the applicant had no other possibility but to adhere, making it the party who contracted the obligation. This situation, together with the fact that they pose evident problems of interpretation, as illustrated by the high numbers of appeals before the General Court questioning them, justifies that the uncertainty must benefit the applicant. The interpretation rule of Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code makes it possible for the judge to construe the badly drafted or ambiguous provisions against their author, being the Commission.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFUE and Article 14(1) of the Procedural Regulation by extending the recovery aid to the Applicant The applicant puts forward that there was no State aid in its favour, since the sales price was at market rate. According to the applicant, the Commission’s argumentation and doubts as to whether the prices paid by Via Chem and subsequently by Fortishem for the NCHZ assets represented market prices is flawed for several reasons. It is submitted that first, as the burden of proof lies with the Commission, it is not sufficient for the Commission to express doubts. Second, since the sale was conducted within the scope of a bankruptcy procedure under the control of a bankruptcy court with the obligation to act in the interests of the creditors of the insolvent company, there is an assumption that the assets were sold at the highest price possible. Third, the tender procedure was open, transparent and unconditional and therefore guaranteed the highest price achievable on the market; the commitment option did not have any impact on sales price. Fourth, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions of the sale between Via Chem and Fortischem are not of any relevance due to the market price of the first sale, the sales price negotiated between private market economy operators is assumed to be a market price even without a tender procedure. The applicant further puts forward that it is obvious that the transfer of the NCHZ assets to Via Chem and later to the applicant cannot be considered an attempt to circumvent the Commission’s recovery decision for two reasons. First, the case is so far from the typical circumvention case that even the Commission admits that it has no evidence of the intention to evade recovery. Second, it nevertheless comes to the conclusion that there is economic continuity, so that it can extend the recovery to the applicant. However, the Commission’ conclusion follows a flawed analysis based on an incorrect interpretation of the individual criteria, a disregard for the burden of proof and a false understanding of the overall concept of economic continuity in State aid cases. Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission’s approach is economically destructive and unnecessary from a competition law perspective. According to the applicant, the Commission is trying to create new, much stricter case law, according to which the scope of the transaction shall be the decisive criterion, the sales price being at most an auxiliary criterion, if at all.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/42

Action brought on 16 April 2015 — Intervog/OHIM (meet me)

(Case T-190/15)

(2015/C 198/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Intervog (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Figurative Community mark containing the word elements ‘meet me’ — Application for registration No 12 010 781

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 845/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (failure to state reasons);

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (error of assessment in the analysis of the mark’s distinctive character);
—

The Commission, the applicant submits, failed to take any account of the observations and documents submitted by the beneficiary by letter of 14 August 2014. In this connection, the Commission invoked Article 22.II.5 of Annex II to the Agreement, under which it is entitled not to take account of statements and evidence submitted out of time. However, in view of the fact that the Commission had itself requested the beneficiary to restate its observations, such a course of action was improper. In that situation, the fact that the new evidence and observations were disregarded in their entirety constitutes a manifest infringement of the principle of mutual goodwill on the part of contracting parties and of the principle that undertakings must place their trust in the Commission.
—

Order the production of the following documents: — the report of the evaluation committee to which the defendant referred in its communication No 101690 of 27 February 2015; and — the documents in the procurement file in which the contacts between the Parliament and the tenderers were recorded in accordance with Article 160(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the applicant to sound administration and effective legal protection, in so far as, despite repeated requests from the applicant, the Commission has not provided it with the reasons for refusing its offer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/20

Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)

(Case T-222/15)

(2015/C 228/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beele Engineering BV (Aalten, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ring, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WE CARE’ — Application for registration No 12 610 275

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1933/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/38

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Arcelormittal Spain Holding v Commission

(Case T-257/15)

(2015/C 245/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Arcelormittal Spain Holding, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

— annul European Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 of 15 October 2014, on State aid SA 355550 (13/C) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain;

— in the alternative annul Article 4(2) of that decision for the reasons stated, and

— order the defendant institution to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission, and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and others v Commission.

The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/34

Action brought on 5 June 2015 — OASE/OHIM — COMPO France (AlGo)

(Case T-300/15)

(2015/C 262/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: OASE GmbH (Hörstel, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: COMPO France SAS (Roche-Lez-Beaupré, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: OASE GmbH

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘AlGo’ — Registration No 10 096 337

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1409/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

Find and declare that the contractual obligations set out in Grant Agreement No HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 Abac No. 30-CE-0495809/00-94 were complied with in full, and consequently: — Declare that the applicant is entitled to retain the sum of EUR 80 242,78, which was received by way of the ‘pre-financing payment’ and is currently the subject of the debit note for recovery of the above-mentioned sum issued by the European Commission — Directorate General Migration and Home Affairs — Directorate E: Migration and Security Funds — Unit E2: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund — HOME E2/FL/2015, No 1520007 of 1 April 2015 concerning HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 TORRE — Transnational Observatory for Refugee’s Resettlement in Europe — No 3241503771. — Order the defendant to pay the outstanding balance of EUR 52 146,36, as ‘final payment’, in addition to the late-payment interest, to be calculated up to the date of payment in full, in accordance with Article II.16.3 of the Grant Agreement, as well as the legal costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.
Case T-279/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)

(Case T-279/15)

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic) — Community design No 4 692-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2015 in Case R 1285/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

Plea in law
Case T-281/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)

(Case T-281/15)

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic) — Community design No 4 700-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1287/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/39

Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)

(Case T-287/15)

(2015/C 279/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark in red and blue containing the word element ‘real’ — Community trade mark No 38 968

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2015 in Case R 2285/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/48

Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

(Case T-342/15)

(2015/C 279/60)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 416 905

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2249/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/75

Action brought on 11 June 2015 — Republic of Poland v Commission

(Case T-316/15)

(2015/C 294/90)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 31 March 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 2230) concerning the refusal to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural assistance under the Convergence objective in Poland;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: incorrect interpretation of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (1), by finding that the investment in the creation of shared services centres, including the employment of specialists in the IT sector designing innovative services, did not constitute ‘productive investment which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that it could not be co-financed from resources of the European Regional Development Fund.

2. Second plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from resources of the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that only investments with ‘radical innovative potential’ may be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project, by finding that it did not ensure compliance with priority axis 4 of the Innovative Economy Operational Programme in view of its lack of innovative character.

3. Third plea in law: incorrect assessment of the project, by finding a lack of justification for allowing a public contribution, and incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that the payment of dividends on the terms envisaged in the project precluded allowing co-financing.

4. Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project, changing the approach to the possibility of financing investments in the services sector in the course of that appraisal, and disregarding the explanations of the Polish authorities on the innovative character of the project.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution has been adopted on an illegal basis, as Regulation No 1107/2009, in particular its Articles 24 and Annex II, point 4, infringe EU law. — The applicant puts forward that scientific evidence indicates that Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity (‘PBT’) criteria, in particular persistence, are not appropriate for copper. — Moreover, according to the applicant, the application of PBT criteria to inorganic substances is not consistent with other pieces of legislation that have been implemented in the field of regulated chemical substances. — Finally, so the applicant claims, as far as candidates for substitution are concerned, the application of PBT criteria to copper compounds goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1107/2009 and Regulation No 1107/2009 misinterprets the precautionary principle.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/53

Action brought on 16 July 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — PepsiCo (3D)

(Case T-390/15)

(2015/C 311/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Testa, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community black and white figurative mark containing the word elements ‘3D’ — Application for registration No 9 384 041

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 08/05/2015 in Case R 465//2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, admitting application No 009384041 to registration for the following goods: chocolate; pastry; confectionary; candies; chew candies; drops; gumdrops; caramel; chewing gum; bubble gums; lollipops; licorice; jellies (confectionery); toffee; mints; sweets

— order PepsiCo, Inc. to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and of the principle of legal certainty

Lastly, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty and Article 108(1) TFEU in so far as it adopted the contested decision in a proceeding concerning new aid. Since the defendant had approved the earlier legislation relating to EEG 2012, it ought to have taken a decision in a proceeding concerning existing aid, and not in a proceeding concerning new aid.